User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 3

I see you're currently a leading editor on the Ezra Pound article. Haven't had a chance to read it all yet, but wow. If Wikipedia had more articles like this in the humanities, its reputation would skyrocket. (Love the ready-for-80s-rock-stardom photo from 1920, too.) I had the extraordinary experience of reading the Cantos many years ago in a small seminar with Donald Davie, who thought the later poems evidenced the deterioration of Pound's mind. "Stupid, suburban prejudice" is quite insufficient a recanting: the eternal dilemma of whether the life taints the work. Beauty is difficult, Yeats, indeed. But his ear for the innate rhythms of the language is unmatched, for me. Thank you so very much for your contributions here. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that compliment landed on this page exactly at the moment I needed it. It's only the first draft. I usually spend months on an article before I'm happy with the content, so I expect it to change quite a bit until I'm happy with it. Pound is complicated and fascinating and very hard to write about.

talk

) 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Very much so, which is why it's impressive if WP can have a good article about him. I'm glad I followed my impulse to leave a note. Best,Cynwolfe (talk) 01:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm glad you did too. I've been following your little drama with PMA. I ran into him at at another article, and found I like his dry wit. Not everyone understands his style, I think. I hope you don't mind, but I've stolen something from your page, as it is the best description yet I've seen on Wikipedia. I'll reword, if necessary.

talk

) 01:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything I post to WP is free for the taking. (Besides, none of the substance was mine anyway.) As for the other, an interesting study in human nature. Indignation is an unfortunate habit of mine, so I understand losing the "dign" part too well. But anyone who doubts PMA's ability to exercise rhetorical restraint should read this masterpiece (the warned editor

WP:CIV. I mean, who's the better companion at dinner: Norman Mailer, even if he's spewing sexist bile, or somebody who largely shares my politics but covers his ears and says la-la-la-la every time I tried to parse something contrary? Cynwolfe (talk

) 16:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have to agree with you, and I commend your fortitude for jumping into this. Arguments such as these give me a headache. The inability to understand what

talk

) 00:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe Imagism qualifies as FA material per our more rigorous standards. It was made FA in 2005, and reviewed in 2007, but it seems lacking compared to other FA articles. Should I seek to get it delisted or leave it as is?Smallman12q (talk) 01:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's nicely written and the information is correct. My inclination would be to leave it as is for now. I'll watchlist it.

talk

) 01:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Truthkeeper, I'm on vacation at the mo -- I see from the banner up above that you're also trying and failing at the whole "must stay away from Wiki during vacation before friends and family members disown me" thing. ;) As for the novel-related categories thing, meh. In fact, that's kind of how I've always felt about categories: "meh". Sorry I can't be of much help; from a quick glance, however, I definitely agree that separating novels according to one individual's idea of what constitutes a defining factor (place, race, subject matter, etc.) of said novels is a bit screwy. Sometimes a highly complex book can only be described by its place of origin, right? If there's resistance from those wanting to move things around, RFC may be the most logical step. Carrying out such a discussion at WP:NOVELS is useless, as the project is gasping for breath as it is. Enjoy your vacation! María (habla conmigo) 02:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I modified the wording so that cross population and removal makes sense and follows more closely to what is happening at British novels Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#New_proposal, sorry if I seem stubborn, but categories really bother me when they aren't navigable. Sadads (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view discussion and achieving consensus is one of the five pillars. I'm not the only person who disagrees with this move but you're implementing it, so the RfC is moot. I will recategorize the novel articles I've worked on that have been changes. Most novels fall into multiple categories but that is no longer reflected in many of your edits.

talk

) 00:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for a late reply, I have gone through with a copyedit though I am not very good with improving "prose". The main thing is that I'm not really sure what prose is. Can you help me understand prose and improving it? Thanks!

Work your way through

talk

) 01:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I know how you feel about failed wikibreak, I've failed about two of them. I'll read that article soon since I'm watching some tv now. Good luck in your surgery, hopefully you'll be back quickly after it. Derild4921☼ 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper! Long time no see. As usual I need some copy-editing help. This time for

Hi Bamse! I'm trying to stay away from Wikipedia - the reason is explained in this thread above. Also, just to let you know, I'll be traveling late next week into the following week. However, if you don't mind that I work slowly, I can give it a try. The lead looks fairly good - just needs a few minor tweaks. I've only read the first two subsections, and my first reaction is that it's hard to read - not because of the jargon but because of the notes attached to the jargon. A little too much blue, although I'm not sure it would bother me if my eyes weren't as sensitive as they are at the moment. My immediate reaction is to treat the notes like linking - present them on the first occurrence, and not again.

talk

) 12:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, best wishes also from me. Hope your surgery will go well and that you recover fast. It's perfectly fine if you work slowly. I'll think about how to deal with the jargon links and will maybe ask at the MOS page. bamse (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You are pretty quick with your copy-editing. Just one minor issue: you changed "assisted by" to "the result of" in the sentence "The change in blade shape was the result of the introduction of horses...". In fact there were curved blades before there were horses. However with the introduction of horses, curved blades turned out to be even more effective and the curvature was refined (blades became more curved). That's what I meant by "assisted by". bamse (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that sentence. The page was loading slowly, so I swooped through, which is unusual for me, but it needs another pass or two. Will fix.

talk

) 23:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You know, I should probably have you throw a pail of water on my head while you're at it. No, wait, reading that lucid, balanced, intelligent piece of WP is much better than that. That's really excellent work. (And I'm so pleased you were able to mention Donald Davie.) I hadn't heard Arthur Miller on the subject before. Hope to look at that more fully sometime. Flory's displacement interpretation is quite good, quite sobering and resonant. Really makes me want to get back into Pound studies. I truly enjoyed reading this, and I thank you.

Oh, one tiny thing: "The national outrage at Pound supported suggestions to have him hanged or shot" was a bit unclear to me. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't angling for a compliment, but I'll take it! Thanks. Yes, you found the one sentence that bothers me. I thought it would be good to mention that Kenner wasn't the only one involved in Pound studies at the time - hence the nod to Davie. Flory's work is recent and extremely impressive - I'm having a difficult time keeping myself from leaning entirely on her, but know I need to use a variety of sources. I'm preparing the article for an eventual run at

talk

) 23:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I know you weren't angling! My remark was spontaneous and heartfelt. And about that sentence, I've attempted half-dozen revisions and discarded them all. I don't know why the thought is so resistant to good syntax; it's actually quite clear what you mean: "The national outrage at Pound was such that there were suggestions that he be hanged or shot," which is as precise as I can be for the meaning, while producing a dreadful concatenation that, if asked, I'll deny I ever wrote. I even tried splitting it into two parts, which led me to consider whether a lack of an actual agent could be the problem. I like the phrase "national outrage," and yet it's abstract and impersonal; when I tried to make an independent clause somewhere, I found that "outrage" was sort of doing double duty as verb and noun, leaving nobody to do the suggesting. "To have him hanged or shot" is such a dramatic and effective "payoff" at the end that I like keeping it there. (Sorry. I hope you have a high tolerance for this sort of obsessing.) If I could guess, I'd say that in the interest of concision, you compressed away who was doing the suggesting: editorials in newspapers, perhaps? Organizations of some kind? Yet when I say that, it seems an unimportant cluttering detail. (Sorry, I'm going on and on; these kinds of syntactic difficulties fascinate me.) Best wishes on your FA quest. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed "national" for now, and will let it cook. I do like "that he be hanged or shot". I've compressed an entire page of a list of who and what were outraged - media, critics, writers, commentators, and so on. Sometimes a few days away from a sentence like this is all it needs to suddenly become clear.

talk

) 01:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper,

I wondered if you could help out on a

talk

) 18:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I try to avoid these situations, but you're right in your assessment. I've left a welcome message for them, and tagged the page in need of references. If it's not referenced in a few days, then I'd suggest taking it down to a stub. I'll keep an eye on it.

talk

) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary for the plot section to be cited with the books themselves since in the separate book articles it is accepted the summary is taken from the books. Also, do you feel that the plot should be cut shorter since in the previous GA assessment that was one of the problems with the article. Thanks for your help as always! Derild4921☼ 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to cite the plot summaries. The summaries should be very short, particularly in this type of overview that links to the individual articles with more extended plot summaries. Hope this helps.

talk

) 23:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent message on my talk about the tone I used when helping improve the Paul the octopus article in July. I want to formally apologise for communicating with you in a way that disturbed you, even though I stand firmly by my position on the content issue. I hope I shall do better in future. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You've done an excellent job thus far of expanding Ezra Pound...let me know when its ready for a review=D21:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallman12q (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the compliment. It's still got a long way to go.

talk

) 02:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've sent you a few articles on Ezra Pound that may help.Smallman12q (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll retrieve them in a while. I'm fighting size on that article, so can't put in much more, but maybe will be able to swap out some sources.

talk

) 12:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You still have room to add pictures and quotes...have you considered adding:

"Pound's crazy. All poets are. They have to be. You don't put a poet like Pound in the loony bin."

— Ernest Hemingway

=DSmallman12q (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Still working on explaining his writing which is about as confusing as the writing itself.

talk

) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I found an attribution source here...there are some more attributable quotes here. You also seem to have neglected to mention that Ezra pound was tone deaf having the "organ of a tree toad". I'm going to try to make an article on transversality tmrw/monday. Great work thus far on Ezra Pound...you do have room though to sprinkle in a dozen pictures/quotes to add some pizazz to the article.Smallman12q (talk) 02:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I purposely left out that he couldn't sing, because I'm writing down to the bone at this point. When I work on these big articles, I usually make three or four passes, adding layers as I go - I'm only on the first pass here. (Also intended to add that to the article about music I started) Most of what I've done is to add sources and rewrite accordingly. This is an article that's been around for a long time, and tended by others. In the end, I may leave it to them to finish. We're using only the best scholarly sources. I'll try to find the original for EH. EP only died in 1972 and the estate owns the images, so not so easy to add them. I'll keep an eye on your article.

talk

) 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The dictionary.com quotes list their source...such as Ernest Hemingway (1899–1961), U.S. author. Quoted in New York Post (January 24, 1957). said of Pound's detention in St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, DC. Anyhow...you should consider including some info from the DOJ's investigation of Ezra Pound...they have decent biographies and some amusing interpretations. Also have a look at User:Smallman12q/sources where I listed a few more sites for him. Great work thus far...he was a fascinating character...though a bit aloof at times. As for images...you could always add quotations...there are quite a few about him...Smallman12q (talk) 16:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You should provide a better source for File:Ezra Pound 1945 May 26 mug shot.jpg. It appears to used in the back cover of Ezra and Dorothy Pound: Letters in Captivity, 1945-1946 and it appears he didn't want the photo to get out...Smallman12q (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. It was in the article when I started and I don't know who uploaded it, but I think if it's an U.S. Military image, which it is, it's PD. But as you know, I'm not very good with images. Maybe post to the talkpage and see if others who've been tending the article know anything?

talk

) 19:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I hit a wall with Pound and had to stop. As far as reviewing is concerned, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to take it to GAN to get feedback, although I'm not really sure about anything regarding Pound right now. I do know I'm not done with the research, and some of the sourcing is still dodgy. For some reason I was feeling pressured to get it done and felt as though too much was coming at me from too many directions, which resulted in some spectacularly bad edits and a bad case of eyestrain. I may have a bit of time in the next few days to work on the content, and then I'll be traveling for a week. In all honesty I can't imagine getting it to an FA review at least until September, perhaps even later. I have surgery scheduled for mid-September, and the last thing I want is to have to worry about a tending an FA nom, so the next six weeks will be a good time to let the article cook and to regain perspective.

Take your time...patience is a virtue=D. I'd also like to suggest that you mention that the controversy raised by having the Library giving Pound the Bollingen Prize is the reason that they were "forbidden" to give it out again. Also, you could make a timeline of Ezra Pound based on this chronology. You've done an excellent job thus far...I wish you well with your surgery!Smallman12q (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You should also point out that Pound used the pound sign "£" as his signature and monogram at times.Smallman12q (talk) 01:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was lost in the sandbox. Yesterday I added a note that the Library of Congress were no longer allowed to give the prize according to a congressional hearing. So that's already in. The book of letters looks interesting. I might have time to get a look at it tomorrow, otherwise it will have to wait until I get back. Thanks for finding it. Add on: might put that information in with the £/ Joyce mtg in Italy - that needs an overhaul. Thanks.

talk

) 02:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Random Break

You might also want to expand (add a few lines) regarding the effect his early life in Idaho may have had on him.Smallman12q (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty fascinating subject and would be a good thread to pull. Hailey is interesting in that the money that came out of the area made a very few people extremely rich, most notably the Harriman family - I see Wikipedia doesn't have an article on them, but the Harriman related articles we do have is for the same family, and their fortune was made in the Hailey area. The mines were actually up the road in

talk

) 17:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A lengthy reply...but interesting... There's an article on Wood River Valley...but its a stub. There's also one for Hailey,_Idaho...but it doesn't mention much in terms of history. I agree it shouldn't be used as a source (Ppound as a "progressive Republican"...pfft) ...but its an interesting read. Enjoy your weekend=D.Smallman12q (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88,

I am not sure why you deleted my addition to the Scarlet Letter, I posted it for a college assignment. If your really disagree/dislike it that much please wait until after August 16, 2010 to delete it again. My class end date is then and I should have been graded on it. I don't mean to offend anyone it was just my personal opinion of the Ending.

Thank you J Rockwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrockwell3 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A reply has been left at your talk page at User_talk:Jrockwell3#The_Scarlet_Letter.Smallman12q (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi mate. I've had a few times recently where it would be useful to use named refs, but with varying quotes. Kind of like {{Rp}}, but where the quote changes each time, instead of the page number. Does such a template exist, to your knowledge, or am I going to have to use a new, unnamed, ref each time?

Not hugely important, so no hurry, just thought you might have come across something that might help.

TFOWR 09:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I would need to see an example. How can the quote change but not the page number, unless it's from the same page? A little confused here....

talk

) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the page number thing is a bit of a red herring. I'm thinking more with {{

citeweb}}, where you use the same webpage for multiple cites, but quoting different parts each time. I need to go offline for a bit, but I can concoct an example later if needed. TFOWR

12:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The quotation doesn't have to be embedded in the citation template. Simply add the quotation with the named ref after it. I think what you're asking is whether the quotation should be embedded in the cite template, because that field exists. I never use the quote field - I always delete it.

talk

) 12:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I'm still red-herring-ing [sic] ;-) I've stuck an example of what I'm trying to do in User:TFOWR/Sandbox. For some context, you could take a look at the horror that is: User:TFOWR/Sandbox/Oman_and_Gwadar! I'm using one (or a few) URLs as refs, but I'm wanting to provide a quote for each ref to back up what I'm citing. It may be that it's just not possible - it's arguably not really necessary - but it'd be nice to do if at all possible. TFOWR 13:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything is possible. I always use quotes to support what I'm writing. I can't really tell from the first sandbox what you're trying to do - do you mind if I edit it? I'll have a look at the Oman sandbox. It's usually easier to tell from the context.

talk

) 13:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything is possible. I like the way you think! ;-) Re: sandbox - go for it. I'm using it as a menu to my other sandboxes, and a "scratchpad", but everything important can be recovered from its history anyway. TFOWR 13:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed the syntax. Once the source is named: <ref name ="xxx">author, name, publisher, and so on</ref> then for subsequent occurrences only the <ref name = "xxx"/> tags are necessary, but if you don't close the ref with the slash you get a big red error message. You were using more tags than necessary. Does this make sense?

talk

) 13:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. I think I'm confusing things by talking about quotes. I've put another example in the sandbox (I was going to {{talkback}} you, so I left a comment there, but basically I'm now thinking the solution may lie with the notes-and-references magic you performed some time ago - the "quotes" are for the cites themselves - hopefully it'll be apparent from the new sandbox stuff). TFOWR 13:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I need an example. If you're trying to put a note at the bottom of the page, that's an entirely different situation. I'll be away from the computer for a few minutes, but go ahead and cite the Oman article, and then I can fix the cites as you want them to be. We can use the talk page there, unless it's being moved with article. It's much easier for me to work with real examples. Also, for notes at the bottom of the page, look at the syntax I used in

talk

) 14:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Looking at Ernest Hemingway my first thought is that that's exactly what I want (Footnotes and Sources). (My second thought is - I should have looked at that first...) I'll dig into the cites and make sure, but I think that may be exactly what I'm after. The Oman stuff has now been pushed into the article-proper by Begoon, but it could do with more refs so the issue remains. Anyway - thanks for this, apologies for the noise! TFOWR 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that the article is in place with the refs, I see what you want to do. I'd still recommend against using the quote parameter in the cite template. I but can set up the article with the notes section, and then you can follow the syntax for other occurrences.

talk

) 16:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I set up the notes section and moved one of the notes into it. Will do the other. That article has quite a bit of potential - interesting. I'll swing through with a copy-edit if you don't mind - later. These days I have to step away from the monitor frequently to prevent eyestrain.

talk

) 17:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bit of an update to all this - I've not actually looked further at Oman yet with a view to sorting out the horrors there, but I have done some work on something that's been in my sandbox for forever... Ethel MacDonald. I didn't intend to completely rip-off your Ernest Hemingway method, but the footnotes provided a handy way to deal with disputes in the sources. I'm a lot happier with the article now. And it's all your fault! So - please accept this:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For service above and beyond: because I never asked you to delve that deeply into Oman, but you did anyway, and your help assisted not just with that article but with another too. TFOWR 00:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR 00:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a nice surprise. I'm actually planning to get back to

talk

) 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've got to be honest - the article was there before me - all I did was cite it. It was sourced, but not inline - and providing inline cites helped throw up a few problems (when did she meet Aldred? Is she from Bellshill or Motherwell? etc) - but better editors than me did most of the work. But aye - Harvard-style is great. {{

citebook}} - too much noise when editing. "The mad poet" ;-) Glad I wasn't on my morning coffee when I read that! TFOWR

00:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing like coffee ruining the keyboard!

talk

) 00:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried simple reading glasses (which can be bought without prescription)? No matter what's wrong with your eyes ultimately, reading glasses make your eye THINK it's looking at far-away-things when it's really looking a something closer. So it should work. So long as you're not looking at something SO close as to require normal "accommodative esotropia" in theory (by the laws of physics) your eyes CANNOT tell the difference. And even then you can close one eye and get a perfect correction. SBHarris 01:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that will work. Probably best if I don't put out my entire medical history here, but we know what's caused the problem.

talk

) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Update:

Hi there. I have no vested in the novels you recently untagged as American historical novels (Devil's Brood and the other two in the trilogy), but I'm unsure how to reconcile your deletion of the cat with the descriptions of those books as historical novels published in the USA. Are you saying they're not historical or that they're not American-historical? I wonder if the category needs to be more carefully defined, since it could refer either to books from the USA or only to books about the USA. Which was your opinion? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OOPS!! I just saw that you raised this discussion elsewhere--I'll respond over there. Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were published in America but also in the United Kingdom. Not sure how place of publication defines the subject of the book. I think I'll ask to have the pages deleted.

talk

) 21:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't delete them. Someone else might be able to add to them down the road. Your question of what to do about books published in both countries is really good and needs to be addressed. A related question would be what to do when British authors publish with U.S. companies and vice versa. Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

They only exist because Sadads wanted to copy them out of the main article during the GA review. I'm happy to give up the Good article listing. They aren't notable and little information exists on them. Much better to have in one article. Besides, already copied back.

talk

) 22:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Pong. Ceoil (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, deal. Angsty poets causing me angst, maybe? Btw - have you seen this nice comment?

talk

) 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have; nice to feel appreciated, no? Its stray comments like that that make all the hard work worthwhile. You have readers. Ceoil (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to say, the way you are twisting and developing the page in the last few days is very impressive. You are giving air and light to a paticularly difficult bio; you had all the facts, time lines, dates and all that dry stuff down about two weeks ago, and its really only from that point that you can make a page stand out. My opinion is that you should treat this a long project; what will make the article special will be the colour you add over the next months. Ceoil (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Twisting is a good description - the number of edits made yesterday is almost scary, trying to place things just so. I've been in a sandbox shaping the legacy section. Maybe better than the current section? Very tricky to balance EP's legacy - the hatred, the complexity, the innovation. Am traveling in a few days and then very busy when I return, so, yes, it won't be finished very quickly.

talk

) 14:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

trying to place things just so. I know what you mean - I mosly work on articles about paintings and so balancing and placement of imgs and text etc and having the page look right is about 50% of the work, but the most rewarding. It comes at the end of the hard work, which is the stage you are at now. My hoenst openion is that you should step back from it for a while, and come back with new eyes (not an intentional pun, I actually typed that without reaising and only spotted in preview ;) and a detached prespective. I suppose its not a concidence, but I see a lot of parells in difficulty with this and the page I hope will someday be my magnium opus -

Francis Bacon. Both had severe personalities, and both had a bleak, almost cold, outlook that infused every inch of their output. With both you need to know the man to know the work. I see you have weaved this in at points in the bio, actually very skillyfully, but I think it needs to be more pronounced again. I've not resolved it in my mind yet, just thinking out loud here. But all that is down the road. Step back, come back, and I'll give you any help needed. Ceoil (talk

) 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely need to step back and regain perspective. Had to do that with Hemingway several times. It's very valuable being told to step away. But ... in my "I'm almost there" state-of-mind, (knowing I won't do much here for the next few weeks) I think I'll finish adding a few bits missing from the legacy section (maybe today) and then copy to mainspace. I have another set of books to be returned and once gone hard to get back, so in a sense that sets the pace as well. Your comment about knowing the man is important - the weaving in of the little information is the hard part - partially because the finding of the nuances in the sources is time-consuming. I wouldn't mind seeing some trimming, to free up space for the adding of the little bits. I had a go myself, but ended up with choppy prose that I hated.

talk

) 15:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

O and its my habit to give out songs to friends - JCC always make me laugh; this Coronation Street / retro-futurism hybrid might work if you need cheering up. Talk to you later. Ceoil (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - that did give me a laugh. Later - will gone mid-week this week until maybe mid-week next week. Thanks also for the offer of help above.

talk

) 18:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I often find that the colour is easiest found in synopsis, magazine outlines, or collected essays. Bios tend to be dry and focused on fact, where as short copy tends towards the writers openion and broad insights. For example, it might be difficult to find humour in Van Gogh's life, but Robert Hughes and Simon Schama have both recently written fantastic essays that breath so much life into a well worn and and almost monlithic story. Tragedy + time. What I'm saying is that seeing as most of the hard facts have been established, you should try skimming these sources for quotable annecodotes and attractive turns of phrase to keep readers engaged. Ceoil (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I faced the same challenge with Hemingway. Once the facts were in place, had to bring it to life a bit more. Essentially the content is done and the page now needs attention from copyeditors. I think I'l only have time to sporadically check messages in the next few days, but when my time frees up I'll search for nuggets of color. I am fascinated by the story of the women and am considering squeezing in a few more details about them. Btw - sorry, but had to take down Hilda's image - she didn't survive the consolidation of three sections into one.

talk

) 15:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Hilda pic, all I can say is gaaaa. I am dissapoint. More on thoes women would be great, and not streaching the point, I think. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

She's still there, but commented out. So sorry - was afraid it would be disappointing. Regarding copyediting - asked Deor b/c I'd been snappy earlier, but no response. I like how you loosen up the prose - do mind keeping at it? At this point the more I fiddle, the longer the page, so am thinking maybe I should just pull the plug and list it soon. Is it ready? Be honest ...

talk

) 00:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I might have scared Deor off; I'm thoughtless like that sometimes. Comes from years with the wiki visual arts people - we guys and gals are hard as nails. Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlike the thin-skinned lit people?

talk

) 21:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm too nice to say ;) Ceoil (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was a bit of a set-up, although I am thin-skinned, sometimes too much so for Wikipedia. Actually, I snapped at Deor, so I don't think you're the culprit there. Btw - I can get the dabs and the final polish - am more concerned about the overall impression.

talk

) 21:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The overall impression given is very strong, I read it again last night and this morning and was well impressed. Its densly packed and comprehenisve, but readable and engaging all the way through. All aspects are covered, I think you are good to go, and best of luck! I'll watch the FAC and help when I can. bty - the dorothy pic is not appearing for me today, but that some times happens. Ceoil (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the polish and the comments. I've rewritten Paris and will move to the page later (actually have real-life stuff to do!) You're right, Dorothy is gone. Btw - what's your opinion on these MoS issues: imagism or Imagism? Cantos or The Cantos when referring to the long poem, and Cantos or cantos when referring to the separate pieces of the long poem? The sources are oddly inconsistent.

talk

) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Imagism, The Cantos, cantos. In VA, movements are always capatilised, as are series. cantos singllar are just a form. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Will change. Have an eye appt tomorrow and am having eyes dilated so no screen work at all for most of the day. Just found out I have a TFA on Saturday. I might list it on Sat. while I'm babysitting

talk

) 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pong. Ceoil (talk) 14:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You're keeping me busy this morning! Haven't had a chance to look at me e-mail yet - I've just left a msg for Awadewit. With the c/e in place, a content review is a good idea too. Will go check e-mail.

talk

) 14:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

He he, sorry about that, I dont really sit on my fingers. Ceoil (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Responded x 2. Read both. It's all good. With Malleus doing the c/e, I'll spend today looking for images in early books. There's a slender chance I can have a photo taken of the Hailey house, but need to send some emails.

talk

) 15:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's been a week so...User talk:Derild4921#Your articles please?:D Derild4921☼ 18:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Evans will be on the main page on August 21, 2010.Smallman12q (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, must of missed this in the flurry of messages earlier, although I noticed the date had been added to the article talkpage. Was hoping you'd forgotten about this; will go give it a polish.

talk

) 19:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't so bad...though some more info could be added from "McNair, John R. (1985). "Chromolithography and Color Woodblock: Handmaidens to Nineteenth-Century Children's Literature". Smallman12q (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I wanted to know if you plan on expanding the impresario's triumvirate of protege's...that is after you're done with Ezra Pound and his mind-altering poem The Cantos.Smallman12q (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It was very easy for a TFA. Although I think I my first experience wasn't exactly the norm: Ernest Hemingway going out with Pending Changes days after PC was introduced. That was a bit of a nightmare. I remember reading that article, but haven't the vaguest idea where it is in the mess that's my office. I've been printing stuff b/c I can annotate it; the downside is that I lose it. Will have to find it. I do remember thinking it was interesting.

talk

) 00:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit disappointing to see Evans only got 19k views...Smallman12q (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Victorian children's book printers aren't very interesting to most people, unfortunately. Still, it's a nice article, and worth having done. Sorry for the belated response - took a day away.

talk

) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

A good short article on referencing Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-04/Tutorial and my personal cite page User:Jeepday/Cite JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this will be very useful.

talk

) 12:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a proposal to merge the Atlas lects of Berber, in case you're interested. — kwami (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your great work copyediting articles even though you're busy in RL, this barnstar is for you! Derild4921☼ 00:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Derild! I don't mind helping out!

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That was a big improvement You may have given me the courage and motivation to continue with this article.

Well, I did promise. And my recent ramblings on your page had what I needed for Ezra.

talk

) 02:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I tell you what; when I get discouraged with workhouses again, and you get discouraged with Ezra, we'll just swap articles for a while and have at it, :lol:

Fatuorum

02:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I can understand being discouraged with workhouse - too many sections. For some reason I don't have much problem with organization. Fitting together all the little pieces from many sources, adhering to each source, and then achieving a good flow, is where I tend to struggle. On workhouse, I'd actually flatten the sections at the bottom as well, but those are easier to do. Done for the night now.

talk

) 02:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm almost completely the opposite, so we might make a good team.

Fatuorum

02:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove references simply because you cannot verify them online. References do not have to be accessible online to be verified. Use the library.

Also, the title of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry is "Jacob Epstein (British sculptor)". Did you miss that?

Sorry for re-adding that infobox. I thought the reasoning on the talkpage by Ceoil was not good enough. Thanks for providing the link WP:Disinfoboxes on the talkpage. I read through it and understood that this infobox had no references at all so I agree it isn't worth keeping. Minimac (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice message. I've gone through the history of article and it's not had an infobox in over 3 years; but Ceoil would know. Yes, the

talk

) 20:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You've been doing great work, these types appear from time to time, I thought your idea this morning is good and if I can navigate into a template I'll give it a try. Ty and Litho are also adept at creating templates...Modernist (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This is such an annoying distraction. I worked a bit on the Hemingway template, so I'm not completely unfamiliar with them, but at the moment I want to try to push through finishing Ezra. Then I'd be happy to help. I'm just sorry I started this.

talk

) 03:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A well thought out Modernist template is just a great idea, if its one for the a later date, I certainly help. Ceoil (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It would need to be well thought out, but it would be nice to pull together all the modernist articles we have. A good future project.

talk

) 11:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Those romantics have a good one going, along the lines Modernist is suggesting[8], we could gut that and evolve. <cough> After christmas, of course. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to this [9] for the modernists - which is pathetic. Once set up, wouldn't be that much work to plug in the individual articles. Seems that christmas is a long way away - no telling what can be done between now and then...

talk

) 12:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I was thinking and adding it to this one or just re-doing it: [10]...Modernist (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm re-reading - In the lede so far I'd like to know his son and daughters name; and what I think of Pound when I think of Pound - was of an utterly loathsome character but alas a great poet; I'd almost like to see in the first paragraph something that reflects how controversial he became. I'll add wlinks as I go; feel free to delete whatever you don't agree with...Modernist (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read. I've added the children's names, and sketched in a draft of a new paragraph at the bottom. Later I'll work on integrating it into the first paragraph. This one is a challenge, as I'm sure you can understand.

talk

) 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The lede has improved. Excellent job so far; although as I said I utterly detest Pound. A little of my own experiences - I remember speaking with Allen Ginsberg in Canada in 1966 and listening to Allen speak about Poetry; so I'm not surprised that Ginsberg and other writers were so kind to Pound, although my sentiments are more in line with Arthur Miller. The Bollingen Foundation was the publishers of an english version by Richard Wilhelm (and the best version) of the I Ching which has a strong base in Confucius philosophy. While that is in my opinion one of the greatest books I own; I wonder if the I Ching was one of the books Pound carried around. I also think Bob Dylan is by far the greatest poet of the 20th century and he mentions Pound in Desolation Row which you might want to add to the legacy section...Modernist (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable feedback, and for reminding me of Dylan - will try to get my hands on a copy of it, or pull it up online. Your post is somewhat of a blast from the past - I lived in Boulder for many years; Ginsberg was the poet in residence and every apartment coffee table had a copy of the I Ching. Hadn't thought of Pound carrying that with him, but it's an interesting thought. Still tweaking the content. I've pretty much given up trying to understand what he was thinking in the 30s and during the war, but need to present some sort of cogent explanation. My biggest fear has been leaning too far in either direction - Pound the great poet or Pound the monster. Certainly the sources to exist to go either way, so it's a balancing act.

talk

) 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten how good Desolation Row is. Am afraid to admit though, Bob Weir's version is the one I know best [11]...

talk

) 00:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sent you an email.

Got it. Am that way too. Good luck with these articles.

talk

) 15:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep on going until late September. Ceoil (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, I am a bit disheartened, but intense editing on these big articles will do that. I had an image approved for the Paris section (which does make me happy) - I think there are still questions about the images of the women, but haven't the energy to deal with it at the moment. I filled in some gaps last night, and I've tried to improve the flow a bit. If you or Malleus want, it's probably ready for another copyedit pass. I have found a formatting problem with the blockquote that will need to be fixed at some point. I wanted to have the content in place by the end of summer and it seems I managed to do so. Am taking a break from Ezra, but before the books have to go back to the library (in a few days) if I have time I'd like to expand Dorothy's article. Thanks for the help and encouragement.

talk

) 12:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll give another copyedit pass at least, but next week is a bad week for me work-wise. For whats that worth. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad week for me too, work-wise. When you have time. No hurry.

talk

) 21:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR - am thinking about having User:Truthkeeper88/IB Sandbox|the IB sandbox page deleted. I've just blanked the content. Can you think of any reason we need to keep it?

(talk page stalker) Use {{db-userreq|1=your reason here}}. Access Denied 04:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't. There are a few edits from ONY, but that formed one signed comment which you promptly removed/relocated, so I'm assuming it didn't make it into an article. La mome made one edit, to correct a few typos, which may have made it into the article but I doubt attribution would be a problem there. I'd say it's safe to delete. TFOWR 07:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd imagine La Mome's edits did get into the article. Was actually more concerned about keeping the content ... the second it's deleted you know what will happen... but I'll get rid of it. Btw - have you seen HelloAnnyong has an RfA?

talk

) 12:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, I'd seen HA's RfA and kept meaning to drop by - I've just realised something like 5-7 RfAs have passed and I've missed them all. Dammit. TFOWR 10:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thaks for the edits on

Oh, I was just poking around at some of your stuff. I have a question though - why is the image on the left? I realize the devil is facing right, but all the women (and there are a lot more of them) face left. Have you thought of repositioning to see how it looks?

talk

) 02:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of inversions in the picture, and in the related

Witches' Sabbath (Goya, 1789). I find it 'sits' better left aligned, and its strangeness is best conveyed by placing it in an unexcepted position on the page. I expect a lot of flack on this, but I've though it out. Ceoil (talk

) 02:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean by inversions and placing on an unexpected position. You will get flack for it. Definitely. Be prepared to defend yourself - vigorously.

talk

) 02:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Im looking forward to it. I never fancied formulaism. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my computer crashed - too many windows open or something like that. Half my edit didn't save, which is odd. I'd added something to the effect that it's a really interesting shape. Also interesting that not all of it survived. Makes you wonder what else was there. Anyway, I'll be happy to pick at when I can, in a few weeks or so.

talk

) 03:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No rush at all. Weeks, months; grand. Your a very strong colleborator, it would be great to have you on board when I do push. Ceoil (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Definitely be there to help when you push. Probably poking around earlier. Copyediting is about all I'm good for after Pound. Gotta log-out - I seem to be having technical issues.

talk

) 03:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Its late. Normal tranmissions to resumne shortly. Ceoil (talk) 03:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Pound: no response from Sun Valley about the military uniform image. They probably haven't a clue about it. I've tweaked the article again and asked Malleus for some more copyediting while I'm out. Suddenly very impatient ... Still waiting for Awadewit ...

I'm anxious myself now too. I like the idea of a focused section by section joint copyedit. We could wait forever. & ping. Ceoil (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

God, I hope not forever ... I hope to be back to editing in a week or so. One thing: that his father worked at the mint is important, but I guess that needs explaining. Will have to see if I can find a source to back it up. Later ...

talk

) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of blinding you forever, I'll renistate that from the notes. Not tonight; long long day, and though its only 25 feet (in old money) from here to the bed, I might or not might make it at this stage. If you dont hear from me in the next week; 911 pls. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it for now. I realize what's clear to me might not be clear to a general audience . I need to dig some stuff out of sources, but can't at the moment, so ... let's leave it. Once your time frees up and I'm back to editing we can clean up the article and make a push to finish. I wouldn't want you to need rescue from exhaustion. It's only a wikipedia page.

talk

) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't there use to be a para on Dante on the page? Also do you think Noa should be mentioned. Hope you are well otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about an entire para, but you're right, there was once something about Dante. Must have gotten lost in one of my mad trimming sprees. Thanks for reminding me - that's a big oversight and needs to be added back. Not sure about Noa - don't think it's ever been in the article, and maybe better for

talk

) 18:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ib dp

Hi TK88,

I'm semi-active and can help out. I have a new job in China so I don't have a great deal of time but will do whatever I can. Candy (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Candy, hope the new job is going well - I'm envious, China is one place I'd like to go but never have.

Anyway... get ye over to User:TFOWR/Sandbox/IB_Diploma_Programme. I've been using the time-honoured technique of pulling made article text into the lead, sans refs, and with a dash of copy-editing. I'm certain you can do better ;-) TFOWR 10:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

@ TFOWR - Nicely done. I've added a few in-line comments for suggested fixes. The last sentence in the first paragraph needs tweaking, but maybe will be fine when the inline comment is incorporated. I'll have a go at it later if needed. If you and Candy agree to the text, then it's a go.

@ Candy - good to hear from you! China - very cool. Have a look at TFOWR's text and if he doesn't mind and we need to, maybe we can take the conversation to the sandbox talkpage. As soon as we get this nailed down, let's paste it in and reply on the

talk

) 15:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I've addressed - to an extent - the issues you raised. The exam dates, I think we could lose them altogether - dates - and hemispheres - being too much detail for a lead (IMHO). Take a look at my recent edits: at least one needs some sanity checking. Better writers than wot I am should probably take over, and I'd agree we should probably move to the review page (no objection to either of you working still in my sandbox, though). TFOWR 15:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Popped in to congratulate Truthkeeper and would like to extend congratulations to you two as well! I haven't looked at the lead or played in the sandbox yet. I'll check it out and see if it's not too late to edit if necessary. Candy, good luck in China with your new job! TFOWR, Truthkeeper and Candy-A pleasure "working" with all of you. Let me know if there is something specific you would like me to do. Cheers! La mome (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LaMome. I think, finally, as TFOWR said on his page, we have closure. A year later ...

talk

) 00:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice

I'm hoping to take

Into the Wild (Warriors) up to FA class. I've added a Style and writing section, but I'm unsure of what to do next. I'm thinking of adding a Genre section if I can find any sources. I'll ask for a copyedit at the Guild, but besides that I have no idea how to proceed. Do you have any advice? Thank you. Derild4921☼

23:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Derild - apologize for the late response. You might want to have a look at

talk

) 13:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh right your surgery. :/. Hope you feel better soon. I've found a lot of sources on the google news archive but they need subscriptions. Is there a website like accessmylibrary I can use to get free copies of it? Derild4921☼ 14:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You probably have access to databases through school or your local library ; ask the librarians. If not, let me know and I'll e-mail whatever you need. Next week.

talk

) 14:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

TK, just butting in here to echo Derild4921's "hope the surgery went well" comment. Obviously it didn't go badly ;-) but I hope you recover fully soon. All the best! TFOWR 14:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR. Last night I made the dreaded mistake of an inadvertent roll-back while looking at my watchlist - so, probably best for me to stay away for a while until I can really see what's on the screen. Addictive, this place!

talk

) 15:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

not urgent: National Treasures ancient documents

Hi Truthkeeper88! Hope you are doing alright and everything is/will be fine with your eyes. Just wanted to let you know that List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents) is basically ready for FLC from my side. As usual it needs some copy-edits. Please don't do it before you fully recovered. Take your time. bamse (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bamse, you've been productive. Will let you know when I'm back to active editing.

talk

) 15:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanksbamse (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"Prefer not to have columns"

Here, is that because the columns are too narrow? You can use "colwidth=X" instead of specifying the number of columns, which, I believe, doesn't work on some browsers anyway (I'll need to check, but I suspect if I go back to the previous version of Ernest Hemingway I will only see one column - I'm using Chrome). Not sure if this helps... if you have a different reason for hating multi-columned refs, far enough! TFOWR 13:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, I lied - I see two columns in the old version. Have to agree with you, one column is better, but I guess a reader with a really huge monitor might benefit... TFOWR 13:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • These days I'm getting really annoyed at the differences in browser rendering issues. I'm still on Safari - Firefox is too slow - and need to eventually to make the switch to Chrome. Actually I was going to ping you to ask which browser you're using these days. It's annoying to spend time formatting, only to see the formatted piece on a different computer rendered differently and looking a mess. I don't think when editors add changes (such as adding columns) that browser rendering is taken into consideration. Safari won't, no matter how hard I try to force it, render the citations in a column, so for me it looks weird to have a section without a column and another with a column. For the sources it's simply easier to scan without columns. Anyway, my rant of the day. This is an issue that's been bugging me.
    talk
    ) 14:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • HJ Mitchell (talk) got me started on Chrome: it's very quick, takes up less "on-screen real estate" than other browsers, and seems to have similar plug-ins to Firefox. I'd noticed the same issues with Firefox that you have - it gets bigger and slower with each new release. Chrome renders well, though there are times (despite my comment above) where it does have problems with columns. Back to sources/columns - with decent citations the lines are just too longs for multi-columns. (Oh, one final thing about Chrome: you can get it to create "desktop apps" from web applications: I used to have a "GMail" app shortcut on my desktop, and up pops GMail without any of the usual browser gubbins - it's just GMail. I'm back to Thunderbird for email now, but it was very cool). TFOWR 14:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Originally the I had no columns, then people started adding columns, but I prefer none. I needed find a source quickly and my were eyes spinning trying to deal with the columns. I've heard a lot of good things about Chrome. Are you still using Macs?
        talk
        ) 14:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
        • I flit between operating systems, but usually I'm on some Linux variant - I've been on Ununtu/Gnome for a while now. Occasional forays into Windows XP (I have a handy laptop with XP on it), but Macs not so much - I'm dependent on clients providing hardware. I can run up any Linux and most Windows on VMs (VirtualBox, mostly) but OSX requires Apple hardware, and I'm too cheap to buy myself some... TFOWR 14:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a problem with the templates, not (recent versions of) Safari. If you compare {{refbegin}} with {{reflist}} you'll see that the latter doesn't use -webkit-column-count whereas the former does. There's even discussion of this on Template talk:Reflist#WebKit Columns Support. This was discussed in June, and raised again in August. You might profit from dropping by User talk:Anomie and raising the point again, given that it's now September. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Uncle G for the explanation. Wondered if maybe that was the problem. Am trying to finish up an article at the moment, but once I'm done will drop by and have a look, and also play with the templates on other articles.
        talk
        ) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Evans' daughters

What were the names of Evan's daughters? All I could find was Etty evans. I'll add some more details this weekend.Smallman12q (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I returned the Evans book (had an enormous fine!) The description in the link might be from Spielmann's book and possibly paraphrased in the article - except the information about the drawing. Interesting, and not surprising, that a Greenaway drawing exists - just am not sure if this should go in the Evans article or be added to the Greenaway article.

talk

) 12:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in (sorry), I think the image is more suitable for the Greenaway article. Ceoil (talk) 11:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Access?

Any chance you know how to find out what they were saying on Into the Wild from this source? Thanks . Derild4921☼ 21:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Pound

Understood. Thank you for taking on such an important subject. I haven't had the chance yet to read the whole thing, but it strikes me as high-quality. I look forward to its return to FAC.—DCGeist (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Given that I'd just copied the lead into my sandbox to start re-working, your comments came at the wrong moment. Perhaps reading beyond the lead to make a decision would have been helpful.

talk

) 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) I did read beyond the lead, just not the whole thing.

(2) Make a decision about what?—DCGeist (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for being snappy. I had the impression you hadn't read beyond the lead, and honestly the lead has been worked on by editors of at least three, perhaps four, nationalities. Punctuation usage in regards to prepositional phrases differ. I meant a decision regarding the adverbials (prep phrases).

talk

) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. Apology accepted without reservation. I'm glad you're feeling better, and I look forward to offering what further assistance I can toward perfecting an already excellent article.

On a personal note, Pound has some significance for me. He was a favorite poet of my father's—a proud Jew who also happened to like Wagner and Celine. My father passed away five years ago. Before he died, he was bed-ridden for nine months, having suffered a stroke that among other things, made it virtually impossible for him to speak. Luckily, he had many friends who would come and talk to him for hours. I'm not much of a talker, so often I would read to him. Working my way through a variety of material, I found that nothing seemed to please him so much as Pound's Chinese translations. They're beautiful.—DCGeist (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's rather touching, thanks for sharing.

Fatuorum

21:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That is a touching story. Looking forward to your help with the finishing touches.

talk

) 23:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Tune

[12]. The FAC is going quite well overall I think, SV's review is just the close reading we were hoping for, and the new lead is much stronger. Apologies for not being around mid week, its something I can never predict. Next week will prob be worse tbh. Ceoil (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's comments are very good and keeping me busy. You missed my minor (or maybe not so minor) meltdown, but it looks as though you caught some of it. Not the best week and was thinking I was hasty about nominating. Malleus has been great and picked up the pieces. Another headache is building so I am trying to get done as much as I can at the moment. Thanks for the tune - first want to finish addressing SlimVirgin's comments. Am trying to stay very focused.

talk

) 15:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

minor with a lowercaps m. I saw it, thing of nothing, there is always a feeling of 'christ what have I done' when you click save on the FAC page. Malleus is a good guy to have watching your back. I note SV is editing the page, great. Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely minor, but in the past. It's good to have this many people on the article after struggling alone and having to bother you constantly. I haven't had the chance to check the history to see what's been done - am beginning to do so now.

talk

) 15:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Very much minor, a hickcup. You should see me in full drama mode, dear I would put you to shame. Everybody was sympatethic, you are obviously very highly thought of. People are good natured by and large, they want to help out. Ceoil (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm realizing that. And we always knew this would be a difficult page, FAC wise.

talk

) 18:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Give me a shout when you get back on line. There is a reason there are not many editors tackling difficult bios of this nature. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Am here, but will be in and out today. Left a message for SlimVirgin. She gave a fantastic review, which is what the page needed. At the moment I'm a little burned out with Pound and want some time away from the page to think about how to restructure or whether I even want to restructure. Ultimately I think it's better than this version, but I won't deny that on some level I've lost perspective.

talk

) 14:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

My honest openion is that a break is needed. You are on the verge of delivering a great page, but as often happens are too close to it at the moment. I recommend a forthnight in ibiza with a good book and full bodied, expensive red wine to clear the head. Relax, sip, appreciate the local talent. Believe me, I'm been in this situation before, and a break does wonders to refocus and shake dust from eyes. On top of that, the star means much much more when it is hard won, and approved by people who do not give support lightly. It goes without saying, and is taken as implicid Im sure tyhat you have done an amazing job here; dont let the fact that inferior road, hurricane, whatever articles routinly pass, I guess you are being held to a higher standard, and I think SV sees a potential that she is pushing you towards. Ceoil (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've been fantasizing lately about a few weeks in Italy - Florence sounds good just about now. Good coffee in the morning, good food and good wine at night. If life were so simple. Really am not here for the star and am not sure I'll bother to relist at FAC. It's too hard to get the books and I need to return them. I'm sure I can find something else to work on, since in reality I can't really escape to Italy.

talk

) 14:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dont make any decisions now. I hate to blow my own trumpet, but this exactly what happened to me with The Lucy poems. Your too involved to let it go, and I would not be surprised if the page was not cropping up in your dreams (better for me this than you - I had Lucy, a hot 18c waif in my dreams for 6 months, Ezra is not the type I'd like to see lucidly appearing before me at 4.30 in the morning, though you milage may vary). Italy is just lovely though, I was in venice two years ago and florence about 12 ago; what can be said except that for me the highlight of the 2nd trip was flying over the alps on a very clear day. Breath taking. The venice guggenheim was something else as well, filled with Rotheko, Mondrian, Klee, Duchamp and espically Giacometti. The city is a tourist trap, but O my. Ceoil (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if it doesn't get a star - give it a rest and take it up again when you are ready; you've done a big job - as Slim Virgin said of heavy lifting. The next step is with the sandpaper and the small brush when the time comes...Modernist (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No I don't dream about Pound and have not intention of ever doing so - that would be a nightmare, although in his earlier pictures he does have nice eyes, but they went crazy quite quickly. Not into crazy men. Florence is fantastic; never been to Venice and haven't wanted to because of the tourists. My experience with the Alps is a little more immediate than flying over - but flying to the west coast over the Rockies always gives me pleasure (hopping continents now!). I'm not making firm decisions either way, but I do know for certain that the books need to be returned to the library and without the books - well it's impossible.

talk

) 14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The research is done, I dont think there is huge need for books now. As SV says its about bringing out the colour. I know you have a good enough grasp of the material to do this. But it would be cruel to ask of it after an intense 6 months of laying the framework. You are not wonderTruthkeeper after all, but you do have a huge achievement in your sights. Also, Modernist is very wise (for an american!) and typically astute (for an american!): think the small brush. Ceoil (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Generally I have a very good memory and remember everything I read, but look at this.

talk

) 15:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"Eidetic memory"? Now see your still obviously thinking. I recommend you not think for a few days and just relax, decompress and enjoy yourself. If it tickles your fancy, you can join Sandy, Riggr and JNW, and troll the bejesus out of me. God knows, and concencus seems to be, I deserve it. Best. Ceoil (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't help it - I read and it sticks in my brain. Okay will try not to read or think for a few days. Not that my job requires thinking and reading or anything like that. Trolling? me? what a concept ...

talk

) 17:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I know you, you have a bitchy side, I've seen glimpses! What I'm saying is you need to decompress, and relax. When I feel under pressure on wiki I take all that energy and fire it at Riggr Mortis. Hes my whipping boy, and god bless him, he gives as good as he gets. We play tricks on each other, nasty at times, but its great fun. At times I'm basically a troll yeah, suppose, and while I dont expect you to be as I am, a good idea would be to chill out a bit and enjoy your friends.[13]. Ceoil (talk) 20:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Take the Irishman's warning, but if you're not going to stick with this then neither am I. SV's comments are just her opinion, they're not definitive, and I don't agree with all of them. I'll ask you one last time to let the FAC take its course and see what others think. As Ceoil rightly says, adding a bit of colour is easily done.

Fatuorum

21:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for delayed reply - I wanted to be able to articulate this well. I think essentially SlimVirgin's comments can be taken as a review from which to move forward. Real life stuff prevents me from doing this in a rush and frankly I don't want to do it quickly. I need to give up the sources and once that's done am locked out of re-accessing them from the library for some period of time. It's a good article - I know that. Have I seen worse get through FAC? Yes. Is everything on Wikipedia fair? No. If I'm going to make the fixes I'd like to do them well and without the time pressure - so I think it's best to archive now. Despite Ceoil's advice, I'll continue to pick at it, but slowly. Hope this makes some sort of sense, and thanks so much for your help.

talk

) 22:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It's your choice, but I don't see that there's much that needs to be done. What tends to happen is that once the FAC spotlight is turned off then work stops, so I think it's best to try and stick with it. I certainly wouldn't withdraw this if I was in your position, but then I'm not, and I obviously can't speak to your RL issues; you must do whatever you think is best for you.

Fatuorum

22:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Malleus is very wise (for an englishman). I suggested to you that you nom, so obviously I think the page is just fine. I thought it would be a hard FAC, but until around 7 this morning it wasn't. It was grand. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those are very good points. I've just been looking over it and don't see a lot that needs to be done either. I'll feel an idiot and much too dramatic for my taste if change my mind again, so I think I might be locked in. In all honestly I probably wouldn't bring it back again. I do believe the difficulty of bringing a core topic to FAC is disproportionate and discourages the writing or improving of such pages. That, I think, is a pity and to the detriment of Wikipedia.

talk

) 22:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

He is wise. It was going fine. Then not. Now done. I have to run. Will return in a little while. Chat away.

talk

) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

"much too dramatic", I hate to deflate you, but I would guess about five people are aware of this conversation. Chill. Ceoil (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "wise", more "battle-hardened". So TK, do I have your permission to strike your request that the FAC is withdrawn? And a promise from you that you won't bottle out again?

Fatuorum

22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Dramatic as in a lot of people watch Karanacs' page and I've done this twice and it embarrasses me. Malleus, if you strike, and I promise, you do realize don't you, that it's pushing me into a lot of work that I might not be able to get done. (Almost daily migraines!) So tell me honestly how much needs to done and is it as bad as I'm reading from SlimVirgin's oppose? Seems like she wants a complete re-work, or am I over-reacting?

talk

) 23:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I realise two things. The first is that if you don't push this through now then you very likely never will. The second is that SV's opinion is just one opinion. Why not wait to see what others think?

Fatuorum

23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really doing this for the bronze star - doesn't mean as much to me as I think it does to others. I am fairly tenacious though, so whether or not I'll bring it back - I can't answer. I think overcoming an oppose by a prolific FAC writer and reviewer is a steep hill to climb. As it happens, to degree I agree with the oppose - it's simply not been an easy page to get right.

talk

) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm a "prolific FAC writer and reviewer" as well, and I don't entirely agree with that "prolific FAC writer and reviewer". Why not let the review run its course and see what others think? Where's the harm in that?

Fatuorum

00:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are and your opinion means a great deal to me. I have immense respect for the work you do here. I don't like conflict; I don't have the confidence I fix the page. Just looking at it now, and the refs are very messed up. It's a lot of work. As a neophyte Wikipedian I don't really have the sense of how long a review can run, and probably shouldn't give up so easily. I'm like Moni in this respect - I love the researching and building of the article, love sourcing a page that desperately needs it, grind my way through the writing with some degree of frustration, and hate the FAC process. Don't know where that leaves us.

talk

) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflict has never bothered me and I've got confidence to burn, so all I can say is that if this was my nomination I'd be fighting for it, not capitulating in the face of one oppose. We're all different, but all I'd say to you is why not let the FAC run its course? SV has today fixed several of her objections herself anyway. I don't subscribe to the "let's take it away and work on it slowly elsewhere" approach; work on it in the heat of the boiler room and get the job done.

Fatuorum

01:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it should fall. I know the kind of editor TK is, and she is very similar to me. Tenacious, determined, and when she has the bit in her teeth wont let go...but a long view is needed here. SV has a valid point about colour, and I know well enough from knowing Truthkeeper that she can bring that out. Certainly the raw material is all there, Ezra for all his fuckwittery was at least a very strong character, and had a beautiful way with words, to put it mildly. I dont think that post FAC she will let it drop, actually far from it. But I think perspective is needed. I added zero to the content, but I feel as if my face is squashed up against a flat glass plain.[14] Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff SV wants was in the article and I hacked it out. What I need to do is this: I need distance from Pound, and I need to think very carefully about how it ended up the way it did. I need time. The main biography I used in the early section is by far one of the choppiest worst written books I've ever read. I need to do some more research and pull in some more sources. But first I want to walk away and have some distance from Pound, because the page is just too intense for me sometimes. When I worked on Hemingway, I took time away and put up a bunch of other pages and then came back with fresh eyes and a fresh perspective. That's what I have to do here. I need to work on something fun and pretty like fairies or book illustrations - something easy far away from Pound. I suspect I will come back to this - it's just that close. But not immediately.

talk

) 01:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

In other words Olivia. Sorry if all this sounds harsh, I'm speaking from my gut and want to draw you out. Ceoil (talk) 02:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing Dorothy first. Then we can do Olivia. The Dorothy stuff is ready to go and will be easy to write, I hope. I'm taking a few days away completely. I've promised help to a few people and need to keep my promises. I'll just cruise for awhile.

talk

) 02:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good news, wash all this stuff out of your brain. Goodnight, and this time I am really off, about to collaspe, insominia is a tough break, best. Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Told you I was tenacious. Just can't work with a my head in the vice of migraine (luckily not so today!). As it happens I seem to be at it still and it hasn't been delisted yet. For whatever that might be worth. Thanks to both of you keeping me company and for the moral support.

talk

) 18:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil, forgot to thank you for the tune - fits my mood perfectly at the moment ...

talk

) 20:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking in...

Everything OK? TFOWR 13:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to redesign the userpage b/c I don't like it - I blanked everything and previewed and thought - 'wow, nice and simple!' So I left it like that. Am busy busy in real life and haven't much time for Wikipedia right at the moment. Thanks for asking though.

talk

) 21:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! Well, you did have me worried for a we bit there. And I have had to remove your cheatsheet from my toolbox... (Grumble grumble...) But glad all's well. And I endorse the minimal userpage approach. Though mine seems to have forgotten my long-standing opposition to userboxes... I still dream of one day having a userpage like this. TFOWR 09:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had some off-wiki issues that have caused me to be careful about my user-page. I've also been considering a username change, but am not sure what to do about that. Actually, I should probably send you an e-mail - you did once say that you were surprised we've gotten through this without resorting to e-mail. Need your advice, I think.

talk

) 11:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's not so good. I've done a couple of post-username-change things recently, so I've pretty well-versed in it. My email is permanently enabled these days, so drop me a line any time. TFOWR 12:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I have.

talk

) 12:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Will start restoring content soon - wouldn't want you to be without a good cheatsheet!

talk

) 18:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! TFOWR 11:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's how engrained my habits are - when I want a citation template I go to my userpage, scroll down past my own link to the citation category, and then go to your userpage... I've got Cite web and Cite book set up so I can just copy and paste them - but I still end up going to your userpage! Thanks for restoring this! TFOWR 11:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to fix that b/c there may be a big retired sign on my page in the near future.

talk

) 12:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

re Ezra Pound

Just wanted to let you know that even though I'm rather busy in real life at the moment, I've been trying to follow your (and others') efforts to improve the Ezra Pound article. Good work, and don't think that just because I haven't commented or reacted too much, I haven't been interested in the outcome. Deor (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very busy too and have had to drop out for a few days or more. Thanks for dropping me a note - I've always been very impressed with your efforts to tend the article and felt bad about rewriting during the summer.

talk

) 21:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a little poem by

Myles na gCopaleen

that may, I hope, bring a smile to your face:

My grasp of what he wrote and meant
Was only five or six %.
The rest was only words and sound—
My reference is to Ezra £.

—Deor (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That's funny - and true. Thank you.

talk

) 17:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I read your comments on the FA criteria page... if you need to have a source checked, feel free to ask me; I have easy access to

one of the world's largest libraries. Ucucha

01:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's very kind of you Ucucha. I've returned all my sources to the various libraries, but as soon as I'm allowed to order another book through ILL will order the Kenner book. I'm fairly certain that specific assertion was in a biography and either I didn't take notes, or tossed the notes. Nothing to be done about it now.

talk

) 01:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. What a week. I had a really bad week, left work all five nights not earlier than 10pm. And while I was away things happened. I'm not exactly trilled. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, wondered what happened to you. I unwatched the article and a lot of other pages and basically took some time away to deal with burn-out and to regain perspective. It's not the same article as this one. In fairness though, I told SlimVirgin I didn't mind if she worked on it - but b/c I unwatched it, haven't been keeping track. Needs to be trimmed and some other issues worked out - like the images which we've already discussed. Except for needing a dinner break I have time to work on this tonight.

talk

) 22:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Just an FYI that I've disabled my e-mail.

talk

) 11:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Passive voice?

Truthkeeper, could you help me understand the passive voice? I know it's something about using words such as be, being was, were in a sentence, but what exactly does it do? Thanks! Derild4921☼ 13:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Easier to show than to explain. Which article are you working on?

talk

) 13:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to help copyedit Flag of Bhutan. Someone has already gone over my copyedit so check the history. Derild4921☼ 13:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You caught me as I was logging off. If I don't get to it now, I'll have a look a bit later.

talk

) 13:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Derild4921☼ 13:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ezra

The main thing to remember is that the more than 40,000 readers who see the page every month - that's half a million a year - are now getting a far better article, even if you rarely get any feedback. To me that is far more important than what the handful of FAC comments said, good or not so good. That and the thought that college teachers the world over will be getting sick of reading your version endlessly presented to them! I've only ever done one FAC by myself, and that was spurred by the BM books prize (Royal Gold Cup - a nice self-contained topic). The rest of the time I just take articles to some level that satisfies me - often much longer than I'd first intended - & leave them there, and also join in FACs if I'm asked. FA has its place, but these days you can't without excessive dedication get several FAs on large topics. I hope the experience hasn't put you off too much. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod. I think it's great that students will be plagiariazing a much better article than the one that was there. This was always a long-shot and I was very aware of that. Doing a literary biography of such a complex character is daunting to say the least. I'm happy the article is well-sourced now, and generally happy in my involvement. I'm very happy with relationships made during this experience, and friends found. I am sorry it descended into acrimony at the end, but these things happen. It hasn't put me off - only pushed me back a bit.

talk

) 22:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ezra Pound

As you asked, I've had a look at

talk

) 00:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment, and I realized I lost my way in the attempt to balance Pound the writer with Pound the traitor. I also think it might be useful to have guidelines in place for these complicated biographies of writers. Something along the lines of cap at X number of words, devote X number of words to biographical details and X number of words to the literary aspects. Anyway, thanks for checking in. I know how busy you are, and appreciate that you've taken the time to have a look at the page and respond. As always, your feedback is valuable. Hope all is going well - I'm thinking good thoughts for you in your job search.

talk

) 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would hesitate to give any strict guidelines because these big writers can be so different. What we know about Shakespeare's life fits in a few sentences compared to what we know about Pound's, so sometimes the number of words rule of thumb doesn't work. On the other hand, the massive speculation about Shakespeare would fill a volume. It has. :) (I hope the happy thoughts manifest into a job.)

talk

) 00:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite of few volumes for the Shakespeare speculation. Good point. I do, however, find myself adamantly disliking articles that top 9000 words (in any subject) - so I think I need to stay away from the big topics, or learn to change my writing philosophy. I like to see pages written in a manner that make them readily accessible to a wide readership, and I'm afraid I'm more of a present-the-facts sort of person rather than a delve-into-the-motivations sort of person. At any rate, writing experiences such as these always present a good learning experience. It's early in the year yet for the jobs in your field - it'll start heating very quickly. I'm absolutely certain that you will have no trouble at all. I'll keep up the good thoughts for you.

talk

) 00:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that anything much longer 8,000 or 9,000 words is probably too long - it is hard to read in a single sitting. Thanks for the encouragement regarding the job market - it's hard to come by! :)

talk

) 22:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Things

Sorry for causing you hassel. I got spooked and became defensive. Ceoil (talk) 02:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to apologize. I told you I was thin-skinned, as it turns out I'm also not very savvy in the ways of Wikipedia. If I were more savvy I wouldn't have tried to keep some level of privacy about the circumstances that prevented me from doing the work SV wanted, which was terribly misconstrued. If I were more savvy I wouldn't have unwatched some pages and I would have stalked your edits and known what was going on. As I told Malleus, it's water under the bridge now - I just hope, unlike him, you'll still be willing to cross a bridge or two together on other articles. As I told Johnbod above, I don't like the way it ended - in fact it's made me very sad. Take care.

talk

) 12:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes

I wish you all the best, and that you can leave Pound behind, and focus on the other excellent works that you have contributed here. I for one am going to miss you and I hope that you reconsider your decision. After a while - keep in mind how welcome your input will be...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Same here, thanks for all the help! Derild4921☼ 23:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Indian Camp

Hi. I don't know if you're retired or not, but I just wanted to say that you've done some great work on Indian Camp. I created the article over a year ago, and I never thought that it would be as comprehensive as it is now. Very impressive work. - PM800 (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice post. It's encouragement like this that will bring me back to that page. I'm not done there, but that tiny story, the genesis of Nick Adams, has such a lot running through it, and I still have to pull quite a bit of information and try to incorporate. Certainly better now though, for all the high school kids who are forced to read a story they hate so much!

talk

) 18:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dont go

Re retired banner, say it aint so; I've become customed to having you around. This sound might like a very guy thing to say, but your the better person. I watchd the whole thing closly and no question or doubt, you are the better person. You have an integrity. Is so obvious I have headace already, jesus, potatoe withdrawl here. Ceoil (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty and blue and says 'semi-retired'. It's not stark black and doesn't say 'retired'. That means I can't make up my mind, but you know that already. Be careful hanging around with me, the headaches seem to be catching.

talk

) 01:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Dont delude youself the blue is pretty, I'm arty and my considered openion is that its, not. I may be a guy an massively insentive at times, but pls dont go all 'semi-retired' and rubbish blue banner on me. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish blue banner comes down when I'm ready, though I did think with what's been done to your page on the thread I started, you've probably earned the right to do whatever here - including removal of offensive rubbish blue banner. Btw - haven't a clue why you're saying you're insensitive - seems to me you've been very supportive for months. That's not a small thing.

talk

) 13:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

TK, you are a wonderful editor and Wikipedia will be the lesser without you. Please know you can always email me if you want to talk about anything - literature, Wikipedia, health, or the world. :)

talk

) 03:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Awa for the compliment. I actually miss having you around - but realize what an important year this is for you. Fingers still crossed for you and jobs! We need people like you in the humanities.

talk

) 13:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

From an editor who has only worked with you a very little, but always admired what I observed, you will be missed. I hope some time off refreshes you and you'll find your way back here. Until then, best wishes in RL. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 04:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Princess, I'll find my back - a break is all I need.

talk

) 13:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, fudge. I leave Wikipedia for a week to deal with personal crap and come back to find you and Malleus in a funk and wishing to retire :( Take your time and get your perspective back - I promise that it is possible To Do Great Things with great topics here, but the process can be painful. I'm not in any frame of mind to work on religious articles for the time, so Catholic Church will be waiting for you when you get back (don't let that scare you away!). I'm getting ready to channel my bad mood and aggression into writing about battles and other angry and depressing topics. Any angry books you feel like writing about? Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree that I don't want to go into the CC article now. I just really need a break and mostly need to get the eye/headache stuff under control. Once that's done, I'll probably return to editing. I'll look for some angry books - have actually been treating myself to very trashy and/or romantic books recently.

talk

) 15:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, when I'm not in a bad mood I love trashy books. Julia Quinn, Eloisa James, Jennifer Crusie...geniuses at making me laugh. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And now that I think about it, romance novel still needs lot of work if you are ever in the mood. I started on it a few years ago but got scared at the scope. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• A good place to take a break and get your fix at the same time http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Main_Page JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go truthkeeper...you will be missed.Smallman12q (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your regeneration is the most important thing, but let me add my voice to the chorus of praise. I hope you return, on your terms and in ways that make you feel good. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

[15]. There is a v good story benind this song, almost nothing is known about Jandek, on whoes ablum it appears. He's been recoeding since the late 70s, 1-2 albums a year, but they just get posted to the record label, with no info, just a PO box for return. The first 17 odd were just a lonley voice and single string gutiar plucking, and gave the impression of somebody very alienated, and outside any social contact. That was for 17 -odd- albums and no info, name, nothing, just a few grainy b+w photos on the covers. Then this track - another person's -a womans no less!- voice appears for one song. But still no info. Nobody know who she is, or was, but lord could she sing. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the beautiful tune. I'm here today, tidying the page. Tried running the dashes script - four times now - and it keeps hanging. The page is too long and has too many urls. Just noticed you were editing when I got an edit conflict. I'm done for now.

talk

) 20:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Have books; will start addressing content soon.

talk

) 20:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to see you back, o really. I got a fright earlier, I was sneaking a look here and a bit there at wiki from work during the week, and and saw ominious clouds. Ouch. Then I saw yourself, Sandy, JNW and a bunch of others get merry and spill red wine all over my talk page carpet. Cheered me up no end during a workworkwork week, though I was too crank to join in, I'd prob have thrown the lot of ye out and called the POlice or at least yer parents. I know JNW is the ringleader, hes always been the troublesome one. Dont let him influence you too much, dont want to comeback next weekend a find you with with orange spiked hair, 20# doc martins and a ring in your nose. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Back for today. Not making promises, because if I can't work, I can't work. You did miss the party on your talkpage - too bad. That's what you get for working too much, too hard. People just move in on you. Yes, the clouds were very ominous - I think still ominious. We'll see. Will try not to be influenced by orange spiked hair, doc martin wearing, nose ringed editors.

talk

) 20:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work all over the place TK, not just on Pound. You do a great job and it's greatly appreciated.

talk

) 18:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Span.

talk

) 18:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are tooling up or even feeling wild, here is classic meatpupperty, written by the people who more than anybody writ it in stone[16]. At a guess a dictionary or meetball definition of meat pupperty would mention SV and Jayjg. Old pros. I hope the irony of all todays conversations given this is not lost, cause it aint lost on me. Both have been disgraced. SV will play the vicim card, as is her habit, but its a tired defence. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the disgrace that's hurtful. I'm not into victimization. This is website. We come here because we enjoy it. When the joy is gone, it's time to find something to replace it. That, at least, is what I've been thinking for the past week or two.

talk

) 21:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm back in migraine hell - should last about three days. Stuff like this is difficult to respond to when I can't think. Prob will be out again for a few days. Later.

talk

) 01:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I guessed. I've not seen you this cranky before. You go, girl. Ceoil (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've come to the realization that I very much resent being forced into a position of having to reveal and discuss real-life issues on Wikipedia. Either I'm here or not. If I make mistakes, there's probably a reason. If I'm cranky there's probably a reason. I'm leaving it at that from now on.

talk

) 14:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry

if I refactored your comment incorrectly - I thought you simply forgot to add the asterisk and newline, not sure why you want it the way you have it , but that's your call.--SPhilbrickT 00:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC) However, it now looks like my comment is replying to you. --SPhilbrickT 00:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Duh, sorry, now I get it. I saw Oppose and Support and just assumed it was two different editors. My bad.--SPhilbrickT 00:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem - both a support and an oppose, but be in the same post by the same editor. Thanks - I would have undone the edit if you wanted.

talk

) 00:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion, but to try to make it up to you:

If you encountered a link such as the one you cite, and use the citation tool, it generates:

• Humphrey Carpenter (November 1988). A serious character: the life of Ezra Pound. Houghton Mifflin.
  ISBN 9780395416785
  . Retrieved 30 October 2010.

That's quite cool, and I'd use that. The problem is if I cite that book 15 or 20 times in a long article, then the it's a bit redundant. I'd prefer to see the full cite only once and specific page numbers in the footnotes. In my view it really depends on the article and the number of sources. Thanks the for the link to the tool though - I like things like that.

talk

) 00:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If I want to refer to several different pages of the same book, as I did in Oliver Filley House, I leave the page number out of the reference, and use the {{sfn}} template to include author last name (plus year if multiple books or papers) and page number. If you don't like having 15 or 20 separate items in the reflist, you can use the {{rp}} template. I have used that, although I prefer the sfn notation.--SPhilbrickT 11:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I use harvard style templates and add the gbook convenience link to the sources section. I'd rather not elaborate on the specific situation that triggered this RfC. But thanks, I'll have a look at the other templates.

talk

) 11:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Victoriaearle/Archive_3&oldid=1144610144"