Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:04, 25 November 2011

Template:Archive box collapsible

NG

Very nice tool. An amazing room, I'd like tat each of the, very famous, paintings have a substantial article. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Two things - I didn't get a yellow bar again. More importantly, is this how you're getting the detail of MM? Which I might just have to move onto my page completely because I love it so much. The room is amazing, but feels like cheating. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Whats wrong? I reverted your reversion, and am quite prepared to go to an/i (am friends with baseball bugs). TK, Dude, Ch is pushing us in a direction I'm happy to go towards; I can resolve it, its just not a problem. Ceoil (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've sent some screen shots of sources - can't think of any other way of doing it - for you to see. I'll let you resolve - though I prob could have helped. One is from Spronk, already cited on the page & another from NG - link for citation in my sandbox if you want. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, pls let me know if you can't see the gbook link re glue size techniques. I'll screen shot the page that specifically discusses the Entombment & send it. It's a useful source imo and a discreet section about a discreet process using a discreet example so okay to use from Gbooks - at least I'd feel comfortable doing so. It is v blurry though. It's up to you and I don't know what you have on hand for sources. Truthkeeper (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cant see it; print screen pls. I want to be able to put the article to bed tonight if your on for a big push. I've more or less resolved the image placement issue, but had to sarcrafice the gallery. What to you think? Here is some sweet but amazing nonetheless tonic for the troops.PS Fuck Mike Love; Denis Wilson for KingCeoil (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Give me about 30 minutes - busy atm & need to get to the better larger screen for a decent screen shot. Will be ready in a little while to help with a push. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

My thanks. I'm going to give a try at an article on glue size, but am preoccupied with trading mid 80s punk links on FB with my brother. There is now a bitter dispute over the merits of Angelic Upstarts vs Rites of Spring. All you need to know is that it will take about an hour to finally crush him and refocus on the FAC. Where is Cas, who knows his 80s punk, when you need him. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, crush away. I need about an hour to finish up a few things. Send a pdf of two pages re glue size. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Got them, digesting. Ceoil (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I doctored them a bit so they're more readable than before and I want to read them again myself. As for writing a separate article for glue size, I think it's a good idea. There were many long discussions between myself and Johnbod on Edmund Evans about chromozylography - finally I wrote a page for it because there wasn't anything to link to. I got interrupted and need to catch up - haven't looked at what you've done today. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The second pdf about tuchlein and few other bits & pieces is pieced together from Spronk who is already in the sources. The first pdf - called pages 187- 188, something like that - about glue size technique needs cite information. I'll format in my sandbox and then copy over to the article? Also give me a few moments to sweep through and fix dashes, spelling, etc. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for assisting me with my picture on Paris Mountain State Park.WGENGLISH (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bouts

I've messed about with the image placement a bit, but still not happy. I'll be fiddeling for a bit yet, so bear with me. I was struck today though, re-reading the Koch article you found, how beauitiful and moving the announciation picture is. The browns and reds are very moving, and its amazing how still and "frozen" the image is. Placing here as I think you would get it and might appreciate something placid. Note how off center it is, its so obviously a left hand wing. Ceoil (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Whenever I read that article I spend a few moments gazing at that image - it's very beautiful. It was interesting to read about how vivid the reds would have been before fading. Thanks. I'm only keeping half an eye on what you're doing - am slightly busy until later, so have at it. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I dont contribute to DKY cause I'm old and its confusing but there are some very fine people there, and when I see them nom I know that the quality to bullshit ratio is lessened. I would encourage you to nom. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I only wanted to nom because I think I can make a good hook - a King huddling in a Duchess' skirts, a knight in a wine-vat, something like that. And it's a vaguely interesting piece of 14th century trivia and has pictures. But like you I'm old and it's confusing and I always get in trouble. So haven't decided. I haven't had the time to think about the hook, and I need to do little more work to the page. Are you done fiddling w/ Bouts' images? I might have some thoughts about them. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your less easily confused than me to be fair, and considering what you done there is v strong, bite the bullet and nom. Re the images, fire away. Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious why you swapped the rusty nail holes and Christ. I'd put the nail holes closer to their description and Christ closer to his description, with the three Marys in the middle. Also some whitespace with the newest image on the bottom, but otherwise very nice. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea was to put the images in positions roughly corresponding to thier placement on the panel. But Im not married to that, I'd prefer that the page is attractive enough to stop people from clicking out of it. I'll swap back again. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Stop! Let me have a look at it with that in mind. Have been on the run most of the day and only idly dipping in & out. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense & is quite good. I was used to seeing it the other way. Do you think it would be too much to add to the caption of the first one, "detail, top left,", to plant the idea that the details correspond to the panel. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No I switched back, if its not obvious and needs to be pointed out then its not working. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ping. Also punning nice relaxing tune. . Ceoil (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Hemingway

Hi. This has all blown up and that's now what this should be about. What's this? You worked on a bunch of featured articles, including (3?) re Hemingway, including his article. Good job, thanks, I'll have to give them a full-read. I've read a lot of his works. But that should be a separate issue. Navboxes are really part of the site structure, not part of any specific article. See, for example, The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952 film)#External links, where this navbox sits above another, {{Henry King}}, which is normal in appearance; they match, the site has consistency. In a moment, I'll go do the hlist thing on that template, too.

Drama has opportunity cost. I was going to create {{allow wrap}}, today, to encapsulate a technique for making a rare exception to the mechanism that's now in-place for all navbox that prevents discrete items from line-wrapping without the need for the box to do anything other than be a navbox. However, sometimes we'll need exceptions to this nowrap system, as a few items have 80 or more characters in them and we can make an exception for them. A soon as I get to creating the template, that is.

In the meantime, please put the stars back, so I can navigate to those articles from their author's user page. Alarbus (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should have been less argessive though, in fairness. We dont all have thick skin or hop from article to artice with out a 2nd thought or a damn. You edited a page where huge amounts of time have been invested and those investment cannot be tossed off. Remember there are a variety of editor types active here. You reverted TK and M, and then out of nowhere lectured them on the talk, in a dismissive, cut and dry rule/policy driven, think of the children type of way.

That 'baby-poop-brown' fails colour contrast analysis (you need an add-on to invoke it). See WP:COLOUR. Alarbus (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2011'

Ouch, thats not very nice for several reasons, most obviousouly it has four inflamatory statements, and you went from there to worse. See where you went wrong? Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Re your now post fact rationalising - I was going to create {{allow wrap}}, today, to encapsulate.. ; how the fuck was anybody supposed to know what you were going to do. I was going to cure cancer, but here I am arguing the toss with you instead. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have given a link; it's an add-on for Firefox; get yours here

I've created the template, and given it a first use. I saw that this morning and said (to myself) that needs to be a template. But I was reverted and had to take it to talk. Enjoy your trip to Stockholm. Alarbus (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yeah in hindsight. Come on. At least have the balls to leave it. Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving it as-corrected. Truth is, I didn't even it notice from reading your comment (I did read it, but at the time it was showing as red with the name, not as {{{1}}}). I noticed it here, which will expand to be many. I've been updating the docs, sussing-out a script to help with this...

What the fuck happened here? This is good work. I didn't demean Truthkeeper's work, or Modernist's. The article is not damaged by using a standard navbox, it's improved, as are the dozens of other uses of this box. There are millions of these to do; there's a bot request to get help. User:Edokter has done much of the work getting this fine-tuned and has asked that it be mentioned in next week's Signpost.

This project is about presenting a website of millions of articles to readers everywhere using a wide range of devices and something like 10% have a vision issue. Shoving ill-considered colours in based on personal preference and whim is unhelpful. Alarbus (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you now contradictiong yourself, presenting that last utilatarian justification while still wondering why TK might have been hurt. And though you now are presenting youself as high minded, you latest guise...for the greater good, let me remind you, That 'baby-poop-brown' fails colour contrast analysis (you need an add-on to invoke it). See WP:COLOUR. Alarbus (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2011'. Yikes; do you talk with that mouth to the millions of you readers? What I meant about balls is if you finally decide you are more concerned about rules and fuck the people behind it, dont come here teary eyed. Be consistent, that at least I can uderstand if not respect. Ceoil (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

To put it another way; back off, you know there are not idiots here, give space and dont inflame with sucessive jabs of crocodile tears and veiled insults. Ceoil (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Alarbus I see that you've only been editing here for less than three weeks, so a couple of words of advice. First you reverted here, here, here, here, here with an edit summary that reverting is disruptive. That's five times. The WP:3RR is a Bright-line rule so you're lucky you weren't reported. Furthermore I asked you to come to talk per Bold, revert, discuss but you were extremely aggressive on the talkpage, particularly in your accusations about owning the page. You might want to familiarize yourself with this policy regarding ownership/ stewardship of Featured Articles. Four articles on which the Hemingway template appears are featured - these represent many thousands of hours of very difficult and time-consuming edits, reading books, researching, making sure everything is perfect according to MoS, going through various stages of review. Ceoil is perfectly correct to note your comment about baby poop brown, and I'll point out that your comment about playing around with color and the other about making a few useful edits did not come across in the spirit of collaborative and collegial editing that we have here - it came across as extremely aggressive. You might want to tone that down a bit if you plan to change thousands of templates because editors who tend articles they've worked hard on also tend the templates - in many cases they created the templates. Finally I think you should heed Maunus' advice on the talkpage - edit warring is not acceptable - at all. When I find myself interested in this again I'll use the tool and find a color that's acceptable. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(In the voice of Chuck D) - Damn straight, Truthkeeper88 keeping it real in 2011, telling it like it is, two times. Oh Yeah. . Ceoil (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Be cool

And dont worry about the small things. You ahve a lot of friends here. Here is a very distracting and easy on the eye French vid. How hot was Brigitte Bardot in her pomp. Very hot, let me tell you. Serge himself is not classicaly handsome, but he does have something serious going on, no? Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Brigitte was beautiful and Sergei has that tres francaise thing going - very arrogant, but very sexy. They're good together. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of chemistry for sure. I dont blame her; I'm a straight Irish catholic of a certain age, and still see he had the IT, the xxx factor. He was about 5#6 though. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You can never argue with chemistry - people either spark or they don't. Re 50s, sad to say, but he's better that BB was at that age. Too bad that's often true of men; not always but often. Anyway, I've had more than enough of this place to last me for a while. Two articles I wanted to work on haven't been touched and that bothers me. Almost 24 hours of arguing and I'd rather be quietly writing and obsessively moving around pictures. Btw - you owe me a crop for my DYK. Anyway, later. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Gray

I really like the grey...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I do too. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Things and stuff

Dont feel too bad, you did nothing bad yesterday, but were out of your dept in terms of the level of gaming and deciet and backhandness you were up against. The nicess and oh shucks stuff you see on the admins talk you see now is a ruse, a ply, and you cant argue with a person in thoes words, but actions tell a very differnet story, and the attempt to humuliate you to crawl out of a hole are there for all to see. That she put a weeks old and highly agressive account over a person who has spent years developing the pages and bring them to FA, and then realising (I hope) the mistake stooped to low assination attempts is all you need to know. Ceoil (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Funny how my page kept reappearing yesterday & even this morning when I peeked hoping to be done with this place for a while, puff, there it was again. I know I haven't done anything bad - all I've ever done is read a few books and write a few pages. I've never closed an AfD (not interested) or any of that kind of stuff. I do fight vandalism daily on the pages I watch, but hey who cares about that - I'm not an admin & neither are you. And I don't think either of us want to be. But you are a bad man who uses bad language that's not allowed here. I've either variously made a few useful edits, have an ownership problem, don't adhere to citation policy (whatever that is), make careless mistakes and don't adequately tend pages I've written. It's all very confusing. Anyway, the page needs work, was my first major effort, and I'm happy to dump the templates. And then on to Ezra. Nice new page you've got going btw. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't a bad man until I meet you, my dear; you seem to be some kind of a bad influence; one of those women my mother warned me about. I'm being facetious of course, I suppose because I'm dissapointed at the treatment. But we both now have new pages to be worrying distracting ourselves with, the small things suddenly seem as they are, and we can remeber why we are here in the first place. Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I found a source late last week that I've been trying to get into the Bal des Ardents page since Friday night, and an offshoot page I might work on, so yeah, want to get that done before the weekend is over. Btw - how are you making the crops? I might try to do one myself for the DYK if you don't get to it first. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm using my computer to make the crops. I also control the minds of a few people around me, and use them as zobmies as I slice and dice the pics filled with darkeness and malice. Ha ha. Har har, whooah woah woah. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, that's what I get for asking a stupid question. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

About this weekend: some of it I think is tied into the Big Page problem. Big pages attract a lot of viewers, attract a lot of people with opinions, and need a lot of tending. I never have problems with little pages, but the big ones - sheesh. Ezra was a pain, Hemingway has been a pain, Vincent was awful during the summer. It would be nice to get these pages to FA level and keep them there without a lot of drama, but they seem to attract drama. Seriously I'm a bit upset about what happened. I don't mind re-doing the refs, had been thinking about it for a while, but the drama. Was that really necessary? And all because of a template? Talk to me. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons I've avoided pushing VvG beyond where it is - everyone has an opinion, new books come out with absurd theories; then the theories get mentioned in the lede and like this summer an endless free for all develops...Modernist (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame too, because that page more than most, deserves the best we can give it. This summer's incident was enough to put us off, and I've noticed stuff gets shoved in frequently. In going through the Hemingway references I'm finding things that I didn't write, that have been added along the way, but don't really work, so in the the end this isn't a bad exercise, but it shows how much a Big Page needs to be tended. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Bai Juyi or Li Bai

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

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

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

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

Hemingway, again

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

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

We can use the talk page on the sandbox to touch bases. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm on pie duty this year, so I'm fairly free. ;) Sounds good! I'll keep an eye on the sandbox. María (yllosubmarine) 19:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lucky you - I've got the whole deal. I'm doing this when I need to sit down and it's basically busy work. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

WQA-related

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

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

DYK for Bal des Ardents

On 22 November 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bal des Ardents, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that to escape burning at the 1383 Bal des Ardents Charles VI of France huddled under the gown of the Duchesse de Berry, while a lord leaped into a wine vat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bal des Ardents.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd 00:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

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

A cookie for you!

For your thoughtful response, and for your olive branch. With respect RexxS (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

not sure what your message was

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-TCO

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

I removed that template, totally inappropriate, and absurd in that context...Modernist (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There was a template involved somehow? RetiredUser12459780 (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know what else to call it - the window that alarbus placed and that freaked TK out; - he's put it back only now as only a link - which is what he should've done in the first place if anything...Modernist (talk) 04:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It didn't freak me out. I'm tired of fighting. I'm tired in general; it's a holiday and I have a life and I've spent my days off trying to make one person happy only to be attacked by others. I'm tired of fighting about the little stuff here. There's not reason for and not worth it. If someone wants to be a bully to get their way I'll fold first. TCO I'll post my very long comment to you below at some point. I'm disabling my email. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

{ec} It's called a thumbnail; PDFs do that. Alarbus (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No you posted a file to make a point. Point taken. Truthkeeper (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You hang in there and enjoy the holiday, TK ... we're not all cut out to be disrupters, or point makers, coming and going and shooting blanks at others' fine work when we fancy, and only those who have had to defend Misplaced Pages's top content know what it takes (and we give up in droves). People who haven't ever written or defended top content find it fun and easy to play games on the internet and shoot from the sidelines. It's part of the way it is-- those who can't create enjoy destroying. Try not to let it get to you ... we're not all cut out to be cowards, but you can hold your head high. TCO's piece of faulty assumptions leading to faulty conclusions will be quoted and cited over and over, because, well, anyone can write and say anything on the internet and get traction. He'll surely sleep well at night for what will be the consequences, but you know you wrote good articles, even if good work can't be defended on "the project anyone can edit", where anyone can say anything, and make their mark at the expense of others' hard work. Why do you think they chased out The Fat Man? It was too hard for all those mediocre admins to realize he was soooo much smarter, funnier, and a better writer than any of them would ever be. Those who can't create, destroy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Just...facepalm...so hard....right through my head this presentation is just...so fucking stupid. If you really want to leave Misplaced Pages, I don't blame you. Go and be happy not being here. But know that this is a blip that seems overwhelming right now and will be forgotten in a couple weeks, thank God. --Moni3 (talk) 13:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not as eloquent as either of the above ladies (ever, but especially not after a night of insomnia ;)), but... well, you know (or can guess) what I think about you leaving. In the meantime, just relax, enjoy your family, and the holiday. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

The Bauhaus Dessau!

Sorry it is so tiny. Modern architecture is not always practical. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Some thoughts

Written in response to TCO's report:

I've looked at the page view statistics of the FAs I've worked on and, working with very rough numbers here, the page view averages out to about 1600 per day. If I add in two that "got away", it goes up to 2200 (I'll talk about those in a minute).

The articles I've improved range from over 10k views a day - Ernest Hemingway - to 11 a day - Edmund Evans. So how have I improved the sum of the world's knowledge in two years? This is a question that's worth asking - because I might just decide to hang it up here and walk. The Hemingway page is a pain to maintain, has the highest daily page views, but honestly there isn't much there that can't be found elsewhere on the net and probably lots less than can be found elsewhere on the net. Edmund Evans has the lowest number of daily page views, only about 11. There's very little available about him on the net, in fact practically nothing. Was he important? Yes, he gave jobs to Randolph Caldecott (as in the Caldecott Award), Walter Crane and Kate Greenaway. He changed, completely, how children's books were presented, printed, marketed, etc. He also developed an early form of a paperback book. In my view the guy is important, but he doesn't get much traffic. Olivia Shakespear was an offshoot of Pound - she is important in her own right. Forgotten Edwardian novelist, patron to many modernists. Nothing about her on the net; not even behind a paywall. Saying that finding sources was hard is an understatement. Then I had three Hemingway pages: a posthumously published novel True at First Light, important because the guy almost died at the time; Indian Camp about one of his first short stories; and The Sun Also Rises - his first novel. These have varying page views and a varying amount of information available about them on the web. Interspersed in that was The Magdalen Reading - a collaborative effort with two other editors. Small page views but important painting with not a lot info that doesn't live in books or behind a paywall. Then I moved onto the 10th century Japanese novelist Murasaki Shikibu - with digging there's stuff available about her on the net, but nothing as comprehensive as in our single page. Not great page views. In the pipeline is another collaboration about a piece of art - important for a variety of reasons, mostly because of its technique. Hardly anything available about it on the net and precious little behind a paywall. It's probably the best page on the subject freely available on the net.

Two got away from me: Ezra Pound from which I bailed during the FAC, but to be honest there were some disputes and I let it go. There's plenty available about him on the net so I don't feel that bad about it. A few of us tried a collaboration to bring Vincent van Gogh to FAC - big view stats - but the nastiest dispute I've been involved with on the net drove me away. It's not a big deal because our page is good and there's a lot freely available on the net.

I think to some extent all of this should be taken into consideration.

I looked at American literature - 1700 views a day. The page is a mess, but again, it's not as though that info can't be found elsewhere. These are only FACs by the way; doesn't include many many pages that have been improved but never reviewed.

One last thing: the fighting that comes with the territory here and that comes with having to tend a large page is a huge disincentive in my view. And incivility has nothing to do with using bad language - incivility involves picking a fight over curly brackets and finding fault where there's no fault - just to make a point. None of these have anything to do with the FAC process and everything to do with the culture on Misplaced Pages. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, having met you here and having worked with you on more than one occasion, nearly from the beginning of your editing here - I am impressed and sometimes in awe of your ability and your tenacious pursuit of quality and your trying to get things right, even to the point of self-criticism. We aren't publishing volumes; but rather short, succinct illustrated texts. You have created a wide range of information that emanates from an enormous body of literature all of which should make you proud. You have become a courageous and valuable and experienced writer here; with both an accomplished and steadily growing knowledge of this project. I know how focused and intense working here gets to be; and you have provided to many of us - an invaluable colleague, whose focus and drive demands the most from the material and from our efforts. I hope that you decide to continue your excellent work here...Modernist (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Modernist. I wrote the above as a message for TCO and ended up not putting it on his page, so parked it here while I'm thinking. I think you make a good point about succinct illustrated books. The two articles I'm the most proud of (if I'm allowed to admit pride) are Edmund Evans and Murasaki Shikibu. In both of those pages I spent hours finding images in museums and digital libraries with the intention bringing the images from all those diverse sites onto a single page. And with the intention that a person could only look at the pictures and still get a sense of the topic - l guess the sort of thing I did when as a kid I randomly flipped through an encyclopedia and looked at the pictures. The other criteria I set for myself is to make certain I've covered all the literature. For big pages like Hemingway and Pound and van Gogh it's a huge chore. Sometimes I end up reading three or four times as much as I use, simply to be certain I haven't left out something important. Though inevitably I do. With pages like Edumunds and Olivia I pick and pick at the sources until I can bring the little bit that exists together to make a full picture. The bottom line is that a lot of reading is required, a lot of thinking about structure to make the pages succinct as you say, and a lot of thought goes into making the pages as attractive as possible. I also spend time thinking about the topic and whether it's relevant - culturally or historically. What upset me last night was that TCO's analysis was used as a weapon against me - personally. I'm sure that's not an outcome he anticipated, but there you go. Stuff happens. And I was tired of fighting - I couldn't fight Alarbus and TCO's report being used as a weapon. If people aren't willing to acknowledge that we're writing an encyclopedia, that some of us go to the sources and write and need to be left in peace, then this place won't work. I've created very few new pages because I recognize the cycle here is at the improvement stage and beyond the creation stage - at least for most of the work I do. I'm not here for glory or stars or to rack up points. I'm here because sometimes I like it, I've made some good friends - you and all you guys in the VA group! - and well on some days it's fun. On others it's not. Anyway rambling now, but a lot of this is also directed at TCO. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Who is this Hugh and why does he have to do the chores? Honestly, you are ruining the Internet with these typos. Ruining it! And after I spent the last five minutes making it perfect. Yomangani 17:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC) (formerly VarnishedUsul118118)

; the ones he deleted starting here are the best :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy - I glanced at all of that last night and read it again this morning but forgot that the deletions have to be read too. I need to get away from here for a while. Those are funny. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm particularly fond of Ceoil's "excitable leaps of logic", a phrase that typifies the Manic Manifesto, and was seen in TCO's wholly ridiculous SPI of Barking Moon and Mattisse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

His "excitable leaps of logic" is more expressive than my "serious organization problem" and thanks for posting those. I hadn't taken the time to go through the diffs and I don't think he should have deleted that. I hope you were able to have a decent thanksgiving yesterday, despite wiki. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hang in there

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

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

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

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

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

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