This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It was ambiguous enough I thought I could get away with giving you a bad time about it as though that was what you had meant. It was just a little teasing. I didn't mean to upset you. The process is terrifically picky--but it's legitimate about me as well--I think I am not detail oriented enough for this. Having to be sure all the isbn's are in the same format and all the references have all the same information--it's batty! It's not about content as near as I can tell. And of course you are absolutely right--I need all the luck I can get. So far no one has made a single comment on it. Nominations do die from lack of interest. I'd rather go down trying though I guess. Don't be upset with me, okay? I was just playing with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't know, I'm still upset from the Neil Gaiman-thing above... ;-)
Don't be too blue--it was someone else's work he was unhappy with. If he's not actually a Wikipedean--which he clearly isn't--he would never think to check who started the article. You are still incognito with him I think. You could show up and fix it and take the credit though! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Your stars are clearly misaligned--the universe is definitely out to get you. I have never before seen anything but well-deserved praise and admiration of you posted anywhere! This is bizarre! Well, if it counts for anything, those of us who actually know you and have worked with you know this is all BS and still admire and appreciate you. For me--this is actually kind of nice--since it means you can understand a little better what it has been like for me--because after all, it is all about me. LOL! That's a joke. :-) I am not rejoicing at your misfortune--honestly--this is by way of saying I can totally relate and know that it's very difficult to prove you did not intend something. Even with diffs. You will come out the other side of this--just like you helped me to do--because the reality is you are a really good person and a good Wikipedian. Answer as you must and trust that things will naturally rebalance themselves at some point.
But that isn't what I came to talk about! Someone finally showed up at FAC Biblical criticism!! They have comments on images--at which I suck! Four of them need those US PD tags you figured out how to do--so can you explain it to me so I can go do that and fool them into thinking I know what I'm doing? The other comments on images I haven't a clue about! I'm trying not to panic! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words, Jenhawk. I'll take a look tomorrow, time for bed, soonish. Misaligned stars can be realigned with a long enough lever, and to quote General Melchett, if nothing else works, a total, pig-headed, refusal to face facts will see us through. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I did a little on the images, hopefully the other stuff will sort itself out, probably dead easy when you know how. What you need is a go-to-person who is a genius at Commons, sadly I don't have one (but I have one for Australian music, and one for Shakespeare). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Good to know! I can quote Shakespeare reasonably well, but by no means at the genius level! And I have an Australian friend that makes music--but that's the extent of my knowledge there--so nowhere in the same universe as genius! I posted the question at the Teahouse and they posted an info page at my talk page--which did not directly address any of my issues. I knew someone had gone and added tags--how does one do that by the way--or where can I find some instruction? If you know--see--you are my genius. :-) I thought it was Gerda since she posted there--and I did some too--so who knows if too many cooks spoiled the pictures or not. I guess the reviewer will answer at some point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
"You forgot your meat yesterday." "Ah! Now the winter of our discontent is made glorious summer by this loin of pork." The Bard, like a certain Book, pops up everywhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I loved Lovejoy! One of the best things ever on TV. Ian McShane is a brilliant actor and one of the most underappreciated out there. He should have won every award possible for his work on "Deadwood."
Before making that call on superiority, you should see his performance in Deadwood. He was astounding. Be prepared for mucho foul language! That may be what put some off--I am still upset he didn't get more awards. His character in Deadwood is complex--does Shakespearean soliloquies for heaven's sakes--even talks to a skull in the first season! McShane acted out passing a kidney stone in the third season--absolutely believable--thought he would give himself a heart attack! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I have looked everywhere and can't find it. We get every tv channel known to man, I thought; we get BBC America and Netflix and Amazon Prime--all of which should have that show somewhere--but right now, it's nowhere to be found. Is it old? My husband and I love Brit tv--but not the comedy so much--comedy doesn't travel all that well apparently. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Jenhawk777. Saw the discussions at the Teahouse and BC, but haven't so far come up with anything constructive to add, sorry. But over to the important stuff, I've now seen Deadwood. Good bordering on unpleasant (Hell on Wheels (TV series) was pretty good too, but haven't seen all of it), I got the impression that they were never sure about continuation, all seasons ended so cliffhager-less. Calamity Jane wasn't totally unlike what I remember from Calamity Jane (Lucky Luke). Similar language, though in the comic it is of course in "grawlixes". Still think Francis Urquhart is a more enjoyable villain. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
It's okay. I can't think of anything constructive to add either. That is a perfect description of Deadwood! Good bordering on unpleasant--I did warn you! Language was overkill I thought. Still, Ian McShane was brilliant though don't you think? Thank you for this. A normal ordinary conversation is quite lovely. I appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Sure he was (but IMO even better in Kings), also Jane and Wu, who I feel made the most of "cocksuckers!". I watched this without subtitles, and some of the english was a little unclear to me (not Ian's, of course). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Of course not Ian's! Watching without subtitles--you know I use subtitles when I watch British tv? :-) I don't know exactly how great actors do what they do, but it sure is impressive at times. Speaking of impressive, the discussion at the tea party closed out with an apology from the big dog, then he went and struck the things he had posted on my talk page and apologized again. Pretty impressive of him I would say. I tried to be gracious. :-) It was not my intent to cause him trouble-. All is now forgiven as far as I am concerned. Perhaps that chapter of my Wikipedia career will now close forever! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
O_O Wow, that was unexpected. Dammit, I saw that thing in the history, thought "huh, couldn't he wait a few hours for her to get a ref?", but it didn't occur to me that Jytdog didn't read it that way. Many of us use ref/cite/source pretty interchangably in discussions/edit summaries (at least I do), I guess that didn't occur to him at the time. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources: "A citation, also called a reference,[1]..." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
And speaking of British TV, this is one of my favorite classics:[2] Also, try to watch "Enemies Foreign and Domestic" for obvious reasons:[3] I think he's alluding to a meeting between Reagan and Gorbachev. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for that! I just went ahead and apologized for being too ignorant to know the difference. He would not have had to wait hours either--I was going for the ref--I mean citation :-) --immediately. But I don't think actually putting it there would have made any difference at the time. He was mad. I had the audacity to revert HIM! And as we know from my bravery barnstar--that kind of move is so like me! Well, this time it worked out. Being in a public forum instead of a private one made the difference I think. I have since offered to have him remove the paragraph he finds inadequate and let him rewrite it as he sees fit. That way it won't add length or make it seem as though the Jews get more attention in the article than anyone else, which is a lot of what I was worried about. It's already so freaking long!! Maybe this will be sufficient. We'll see I guess! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Upstart Crows must have been hilarious! I think I will use these! If you ever see me write "I am Puck!" you'll know why! I was also impressed with your correspondent: I think it's something about the culture, and possibly the kind of people the task attracts, that leads too many of them into some kind of "I'm the last line of defence before armageddon" mindset. Pity that, because as you said the job is important and many (probably most, even, but I'm not in a charitable mood :)) are just quietly getting on with it. But the bad apples do a lot of damage, particularly in scaring away new editors. So--I am not the only one! I loved User:Xover! Gerda says most conflicts here are caused by simple misunderstandings. I will keep that in mind too--but once they have dug in--proving that becomes a huge effort. At any rate, I will be referencing FSNEP for the rest of my life now!
Well who doesn't love grumpy old men anyway? They are mostly good hearted people who just get tired of the world beating them over the head for it! I love Gråbergs and he respects you and I was impressed by your insight (quoted above) and just wanted to say hi. It's nice to meet someone else willing--on occasion--to stand firm against the nonsense. Humor and good will and the occasional flash of intelligence are what I value here! I hope we will have the opportunity to get to know each other better as time goes by. Thank you Gråbergs! Vote for FSNEP! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Christ on a crutch! Lit.crit. and theology?!? You must have an extraordinary constitution: my eyes glaze over halfway through the colophon in either field. In any case, very nice to meet you Jenhawk777! Nobody with The Bookworm on their user pages can be anything but splendid people! But despite Gråberg's subtle, but far too kind, compliments, I'm mostly just the resident grump. I know a little bit about Shakespeare (historiography and biography mostly) and related topics, and have some passing familiarity with Commons, but am always happy to help out when I can (never hesitate to ping me if you think I can help in any way). Oh, and when you're out dumping buckets of blue paint over innocent defenceless women (very strange hobby, but, hey, I don't judge), if you should happen across one specializing in feminist/gender/queer-theory approaches to Shakespeare… I really rather desperately need some help in that department. For some "unfathomable" reason our play articles are a little sparse on coverage of those. --Xover (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
No, avoid Wiktionary for this. The Colophon these days usually appears in the front of the book (not the end as it claims), sometimes even before the title. Similarly for newspapers, magazines, and journals: the colophon typically appears on the inside front cover, or in the front matter preceding the table of contents (and says stuff like "Set in Comic Sans using Adobe InDesign" etc., around where they tell you who the editor in chief is). I've worked bit with books as old as 16th-century and can't, off the top of my head, recall a single instance of a rear-matter colophon. I'm sure they exist, and may even be the norm for all I know, but in my small sample size I can't think of a single one. You need to go back to mediæval manuscripts, exemplum, illuminations, that kind of thing, for a rear-matter colophon to be the norm. --Xover (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Everything has a Greek name, but it's only fancy because it's in Greek. Useful, though, in the extremely few instances it's relevant. --Xover (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear oh dear! And I'll bet he didn't use the phrase as synonymous with kickie-wickie either! I'll bet it meant something else! That was hilarious! I love Shakespeare. I don't understand people who don't. Just the Greek I guess... :-) So Xover, yes, I do philosophy, religion and literature on occasion, because my real love was the study of ethics, and there is nothing that examines human moral conflict better than its stories. It's one of the reasons I so admire the Bard--he understood human psychology--especially moral psychology--before there was a field of scholars telling us all how crazy we are. Shakespeare knew! But see above--where you are talking about publishing--that was Greek to me. I have some depth of knowledge in my field--and am a real ignoramus in others! I know nothing of programming! Which definitely creates some problems here on occasion.
I am attempting to do my bit to dump blue paint where I can!
Yes, the Bookworm is one of my favorite paintings. I have a copy hanging by my desk. I like paintings that reveal things about human nature--therefore I am also a big fan of Rembrandt--but the bookworm tops my list. I am so glad to find another fan of it! I recognize the beauty in the light of the impressionists, but I love the darkness in Rembrandt. The man in the golden helmet is my favorite work of his I think--the image of long-suffering. It makes me weep just to look at it!
I will go looking for some alternate views of Shakespeare, but what I would find would be sources probably--not people. Does that work? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, and somewhat apropos, Shakespearean coinage, that. It's from All's Well That Ends Well in act 2, scene 3.[1] It's from Parolles, a braggart soldier with a dirty mind, who is arguing that Bertram, his master, should go off to war rather than stay at home with his new-wed wife:
“
He wears his honor in a box unseen
That hugs his kicky-wicky here at home,
Spending his manly marrow in her arms
Which should sustain the bound and high curvet [curvet = "leap"]
Of Mars’s fiery steed. To other regions!
”
There's loads to unpack in there too. Honour and marrow connote the essence of a manly man, and Mars is, of course, the god of war. So staying home with your wife is portrayed as the alternative to being a manly man (going off to war). But box is also Elizabethan slang for a woman's vagina; the manly marrow is slang for a man's ejaculate; and spending oneself is the act of ejaculating. In other words, in the subtext here Parolles tips over the line from mere sexism and gender stereotypes into full on misogyny: to stay home and consummate the marriage means wasting the essence and energy of manliness that should have sustained Bertram in the war. He should be off enjoying the spoils of war, and spending his marrow in "other regions" (warfare then was even more Not Nice™ than now), instead of making love to his wife at home in an unmanly way. JSTOR has about 12 articles that cite this speech: I'm pretty sure I could write a standalone article about just these five lines!
And, yes, my fascination with Shakespeare partly revolves around his uncanny ability to formulate a theory of mind for all manner of character. It's why, I think, his characters have such depth to them, even the ridiculous ones (the Porter, Dogberry, etc.). Even for a case like Iago, where scholars and critics are still arguing what his motivations were, it is abundantly clear that Shakespeare knew exactly what drives Iago: it's just everyone else that hasn't figured it out yet.
In the visual arts I'm more partial to the Pre-Raphaelites; Millais and Ford Madox Brown in particular. Rembrandt is mostly too dark for my tastes (like Fuseli), though the man in the golden helmet is rather spectacular. But have you noticed that his self-portraits tend to be better lit than his other portraits? There's some nice psychoanalysis at a distance to be done there I think. In any case, the Spitzweg exhibits the same insight that we just lauded in Shakespeare and Rembrandt, albeit with a humorous expression. It just hits my self-image so well on so many points, on days I'm feeling charitable towards myself. :) But the visual arts are not my field, so I'm more at the "Oooh, that looks pretty!"-level of art appreciation.
Thanks for offering to look into sources on Shakespeare lit.crit. lenses, and I'll take any help I can get in that department, but I'm mainly fishing for someone with an interest in that field that I can go to ask for pointers to seminal studies or surveys when I'm working on a particular play. For instance, a while back I was embroiled in an edit war over the "Feminism" section in The Tempest and had need to quickly dif up a couple of good overviews to summarize and cite. But having essentially zero familiarity with those critical approaches, I ran into a brick wall trying to search for something. In any case, if you should run across a literature major specializing in feminist/gender/queer-theory and an interest in Shakespeare or Elizajacobean literature, I would appreciate a hint! --Xover (talk) 10:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
What a lovely response! Thank you. I agree--if there's a subtext in Shakespeare--which there almost always is--it's almost always about sex! There are shallow people in Shakespeare--but there are no shallow characters. He is like Picasso in my thinking. He can communicate a whole world in a sketch of a few lines--it doesn't have to be a fully developed painting. In those instances, the things he doesn't say carry as much weight as the things he does. It's like the Bible to me in that you can study it (the Shakespeare oeuvre) your whole life and still find new things in it the next time you read.
'Oooh that looks pretty' is actually the best response to art there is! Even when we can't explain why it appeals to us, the fact it does appeal--and that we ever contemplate why--is part of why art exists in the first place. Art is a way to communicate our own feelings about the world we live in--and ourselves --after all. The artist always ends up in his art. And I include Shakespeare in that generalized term 'art.' Rembrandt's self-portraits (what's up with how many there are???) are lighter than his other paintings! Maybe he wasn't a 'dark' person, he just saw the dark in life. That would be me too. See--just like you--it hits my self-image right where I live. And it's pretty. :-)
I will keep my eyes open for someone who might be interested in that area. Chances are not high! It's been a lovely chat, thank you--now for that coffee! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Living on the Gulf of Mexico means keeping an eye on the weather during hurricane season, that's for sure. It sounds so banal--hurricane season--like watermelon season, or football season or something--not at all banal when they hit though. We are about 45 minutes inland and not right on the water thank goodness. Hurricanes have a tendency to wipe all the ground next to the water completely clean--of everything. Biloxi is still rebuilding from damage done ten years ago. It used to be the only place in the US that could boast of no natural disasters was Hawaii, but with the volcano erupting, there's nowhere left! Disasters happen everywhere! I guess we will all have to move to Wales! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, humility is good for the soul according to some philosophies. That's one of the recurring things about Jytdog, he's often right regarding content/what WP:s approach to it should be. Another is that when other strongminded/convinced/whatever editors come in contact with him, sparks and fur will occasionly fly. IMO, he is trying to keep that in check, but edits an awful lot in difficult areas and stuff happens. The current ANI is quite typical, and what I see in it are also some stunningly old grudges.
As for BC, you wrote 79,3% of the current text in it (and did you notice it's a really long article?) and GA:d it, so you are the master builder and Jytdog is a really forceful interior decorator. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't keep a watch on the ANI board so I don't know what's going on. It seems like he is always involved in some ANI or another--but I will learn from that--no grudges. None at all at any time for any reason. I tried being philosophical, then using humor--and lastly--I will just pretend to be a grown-up. (humor) I think that is working for me. I honestly do not harbor any bad feelings toward him, and I honestly do respect him--enough I considered his position and changed mine accordingly. I felt for awhile that there were hard feelings from him, toward me, but I think we are getting past that now as well. Perhaps now that he is seeing more of what I write--and now that I am getting more experience here--his initial opinion of me is modifying a little. Maybe. I hope. And you're right of course--a little occasional humiliation is good for the superego... or soul...as the case may be. I like the analogy! A really forceful decorator! That's brilliant! I've had a decorator or two I should not have listened to! Jytdog is not one of them. I think I will learn to ask more questions and take more time to review everything before responding to him in the future. I think I have too much of a knee-jerk reaction to him because of how we started off. I need to get over that and deal with him differently. This last confrontation was my fault. I've apologized--I hope he will not hold it against me! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Haha! Hi Gareth! Nice to meet you! You are the second nice new person I have met here on Grabergs talk page. It's becoming my local hangout--now if he'd just offer good coffee... I think that's the greatest quote I have ever read! I may have it made into a plaque! And thank goodness it doesn't require British spelling! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Gareth I'll have you know I just had my teeth cleaned! LOL!! Grabergs is the best--with or without coffee. I have been on WP a little over a year and so far it's been a bit of a wild ride for me. I am thankful for the wonderful people here who far outnumber the others. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
You know, I just wanted to come and say how much I appreciate you. The longer I am here, the more I do so. When I get off into the ether, you always call me on it. But you do so with the expectation that I will fix it--that I will want to. You treat me with respect, assume I want to do a good job, and am capable of NPOV--after I get a handle on my enthusiasm over some new book or author. :-) You recognize my weaknesses, but it doesn't make you blind to my strengths. You seem to trust me to do the right thing in the end, no matter where I might start, and I never want to let you down because of it. You never denigrate and often directly help. If there were some way to really effectively say how wonderful it is to be on the receiving end of all of this, I would send up fireworks, bless all your descendants, hire a plane to write it in the sky, anything that would actually accomplish saying how wonderful I think you are. A barnstar is entirely inadequate. There are no barnstars that communicate all you are and do. You make Wikipedia better. You certainly make everything better for me. Thank you for hanging in there with me--even when I go off the rails. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Jenhawk. Compared to many others I'm a quite lazy editor, but try to help within my ability when I can be arsed to. So hang in there, WP is VAST. Your presence on WP has certainly prodded me to do stuff I never tried before, and I've done more and better because of it.
Ha ha! I do find it funny--but I find most of us funny in one way or another. :-) Well that would be me and my funniness--always with my nose in a book! The whole smell the roses thing only applies to me if the roses are in a scented book! I never even look at Youtube unless you send me something! I have never noticed laziness on your part--although, hey wait a minute... you did let me do much of humor... no even that doesn't count--that was a gift. Nope sorry, I am completely blind to any flaws you might have. :-) I am not required to have a NPOV about that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Somewhere down the road I may jump in on sex in the Bible since I am doing a ton of research on it for ethics. It's actually a pretty fascinating subject. Right now I am stuck in reference Hell on BC. I was clearly a very bad person in a former life... Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
To complete the theme of Sex & Drugs & Rocknroll, we should also have The Bible and Music (though we do have History of music in the biblical period). Anyway, I guess I'll add some images of naked ladies to the article, and then expect you to write some text to them, that has worked for me before. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the FAC of Biblical criticism is going to fail because of some wrong page numbers and stuff in references. I am bummed. I will not renominate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
It is better than it was when I started on it, that's for sure. Making sure that over 150 references are all capitalized the same, and all use the 13 digit isbn, and are all readily accessible and so on is just more detail oriented than I actually am. I found it debilitating. I needed Aleph. Ah well. Such is life on Wikipedia.Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.
Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hello, Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I "read around" a lot on Wikipedia Talk Pages, and get a good whiff of some of the drama, etc... and also that some people seem to resent being "talked to" on their Talk Pages, and it is for this reason I am posting. 1) I want to thank you for you post on the "Emperor" (movie) Discussion page and 2) Want to give you explicit permission (with gratitude in advance) to "stalk" me, follow me around, monitor, surveil and make whatever comments you would like, wherever you would like to make them. One thing I've learned here is that the "bureaucracy" is so complex that no one is going to learn anything without a whole lot of handholding. I see you (and others) as a valuable resource and would like to "green light" whatever involvement you might want to do.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to my talkpage! I appreciate that (WP-drama can be a great spectator-sport BTW, you may find Wikipedia:Dashboard helpful). Since I noticed you at the Teahouse, I've thought on occasion "I wonder if that guy stuck around" and so "stalked" you a little, hopefully in a non-creepy way.
The thing about WP is that small, simple stuff is easy, but when you get into certain topics that has seen a lot of fighting, things can seem hostile, and only time and patience will give you a feel for what can be done in what area. Anything connected to US-politics, for example, or anything related to human health. Israel-Palestine. SAQ. What one needs to enjoy WP in the long run, IMO, is some passion for writing the WP-way, and not to have a narrow focus but edit widely.
Gråbergs Gråa SångThank you for the thoughful edits on [[William Farrar (settler). I am very happy that you caught the problems. One question though, You deleted, with ability to revert, this phrase William Farrar was first granted 100 acres on the Appomattox River, Charles City County, Virginia about three miles from where it flows into the James River. Listed in the minutes of the Virginia Company, May 1625: "Land laid out for ye Company below Shirley Hundred land: Wm. ffarrar uppon Appomatucke River 10.
Your reason was valid, the mention of 100 acres was repetitive, however there was addditional information that doesn't show up in the first mention and I can't figure out how to insert it, but certainly it was repetitive. Very appreciative of your good will and workOldperson (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you but you were correct. Now that I see it, the mention of 100 acres is redundant and it irks me, I just don't know how to clean it up. The author is not a very good editor of his own works. There is information there I think should be left in, but it needs rewording. Another subject. The notice at the top. The project reads like a family history project. I do not think that it does anymore. If so could you inform me of why and maybe what needs to be done. If not could you please remove the notice?Thanks15:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson (talk • contribs)
I have removed any references to the name of the Wikipedia account which is alleged to be Cable's wife, including links to off-wiki sites which include the same information. Such references, including links to off-wiki pages which include the personal information of an editor who hasn't disclosed it on-wiki, are violations of the outing and harassment policies. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
While I understand the aspect of the username-thing, suppressing links to reliable sources like The Wall Street Journal even in talkpage-discussions seems against the spirit of WP to me. Oh well, it´s a somewhat complex situation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Outing is something which generally gets a strong strong reaction as can have the effect of severely chilling the editing environment for everyone. So, generally (there are exceptions), any page or link which connects a Wikipedia editor with an identity will be removed and suppressed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I´m good with that when it´s blogs, forums , Daily Mail and whatever. In the WSJ case? Seems wrong to me. Not using it per UNDUE is a valid position, but redacting the links themselves is just weird. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
However, the requirement is that editors are not linked to an identity unless they do it themselves. Given that, it doesn't matter which page is being linked to, the content of the page matters. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Still weird, principles clash. In this particular case there was also a sort-of off-WP disclosure in sources.
It's a bit of an unclear area that is best to avoid - while the user identifies herself by a name it's not necessarily specifically as a person. In any case, WP:BLP applies everywhere not just to articles. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Merry Merry
Happy Christmas!
Hello Gråbergs Gråa Sång,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk08:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
... gan yr hen Gymro; rwy'n gobeithio eich bod wedi cael gwyliau Nadolig gwych ac rwy'n dymuno 2019 heddychlon i chi! That is Welsh and translates to: Spicy hot wine for you from the old Welshman; I hope you have had a great Christmas holiday and I wish you a peaceful 2019! Thank you for your excellent work on the 'pedia.
…Hamlet in popular culture desperately needs a cite for each entry, and quite probably also a pruning. I don't mind these articles that are specifically about cultural references amassing trivia (it's a great safety valve keeping that stuff out of the main Hamlet article), but they do need to get cleaned up now and again (and the maint. tags are cluttering up my "to fix" list). In any case, no obligation and certainly no rush; I just didn't feel like taking it on and figured it might be right up your alley. If you do decide to have a go at it, feel free to ping me if you need me to look something up in the Shakespeare literature (or any other reason, of course). --Xover (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. It looks self-evident that a rose hybrid created in 1986 is named for Shakespeare's character rather than any of its precursors or the modern derivates (the board game etc.), and there are plenty of databases that make the connection, but I cannot find any high quality reliable source that discusses it. I'd say for … in popular culture we can use it uncited as the image caption, but in the main article that would be problematic (and at FAC it would probably be challenged). The only option I can see would be to contact David C.H. Austin and ask him to email WP:OTRS with a statement to the effect that it was named for the play. He's 92, but his sons might be willing to help if he's retired. (addendum: the option to email OTRS for this stuff seems to have disappeared on me. I've raised it at WT:OTRS, but it might no longer be an option, sadly. ) --Xover (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it's probably true, but I was annoyed that I couldn't find a cite. I think at least Othello in popular culture should perhaps be renamed "Othello in art and culture/Cultural depictions of Othello", significant portions fall outside popcult IMO. Perhaps the Hamlet one too, when I'm done with it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Xover, ok, so far I've done plays and films. One thing: in the Star Trek section, I'm guessing I've wikilinked The Washington Shakespeare Company correctly, buy I'm not 100% on that. If you think it's wrong, please correct. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I apologize I have forced my edit on Greensborough College after a conflict with your work, because my change was a bit broader than yours. However, that caused restoring the {{refimprove}} template to the article. Please verify if this is correct, and remove it again if not necessary anymore. --CiaPan (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Whoops, now I can see you have added the template, not removed. I must have mis-read the ec-diff report. Please ignore the irrelevant comment above. CiaPan (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.
To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Editor2020, interesting. I'm looking at Tallit and Tzitzit to have something to compare with. "Wikipedia uses italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English." or "Loanwords and borrowed phrases that have common usage in English – Gestapo, samurai, vice versa – do not require italics. A rule of thumb is not to italicize words that appear unitalicized in general-purpose English-language dictionaries." And do those apply to titles anyway? I have no firm opinion, do as you like. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
I will be removing the word "falsely" again in the introductory sentence to the Obama Birth Certificate Conspiracy Theory page. Despite Obama producing his Birth Certificate documentation (I believe he was born in the US) there is no way to know for sure that he was born in the US. Therefore, it is not a matter of true/false whether was he born in the US, it's still a matter of conjecture.
Goldstandard32, on WP, it's a matter about what reliable sources say. If they say falsely/incorrectly/whatever, so do we. If you want to discuss this further, do it on the article's talkpage. Consider the context that despite that assertion he was elected twice. And don't WP:EDITWAR. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Heh, that's a few minutes you'll never get back. It's rare I get it wrong with reverts but I really should not have done. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
We have not communicated much (ever?) but my mental image of your editing caused me to reason "Ok, that sounds unlikely, but if Sitush says so, I have to check." However, your swift revert has restored your status in my mind. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
My source is the script from a website called Script-O-Rama. I had it cited, but Wikipedia apparently has the domain blacklisted, and I can't even add it here. :( JustAMuggle (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi JustAMuggle! Probably copyright reasons, and it wouldn't be good enough anyway. The "rule" here is that just existing is not enough, a WP:RS independent of the topic (the script isn't) must have noted it and commented on it. Shakespeare-stuff tend to be commented on a lot, there are entire books (published by universities, often) about Shakespeare in modern culture. Like this one here [14] which tells us that yes, Chewbacca holding C3PO:s head is indeed a reference to Hamlet. But some things will not have been noticed, and then WP won't notice them either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your explanation! It's still disappointing that it shouldn't be included (because Harriet the Spy was an awesome movie when I was a kid, hahaha), but I understand the reasoning behind it. :) JustAMuggle (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I think there was a time when you wanted to be my friend. But sadly, instead of talking to me like a human being, you chose instead to use your wealth to spy on me, and harvest information from me without my consent. Since making that decision you have become increasingly hostile to me, and increasingly aggressive in your invasion of my privacy. I need to make clear that I have done nothing to you. You are the one responsible for the consequences of your poor life choices. You have no business getting offended by things said in private messages that are not addressed to you. I may not live to see 2020, but you should be intelligent enough to know that if I don't, a lot of people who know what you have been doing are going to start talking about it. Woscafrench (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
"Except if you are PewDiePie's manager, in which case you can just send the royalty and advertising checks to my email account. I'll just cash them myself to save you the trouble." --Xover (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
You may have seen this announcement that all the 'Featured Hosts' - whose names and pictures randomly cycle round in the Teahouse Header - have just been updated.
As you are currently one of the 29 most active editors at WP:TH, your name and an image has now replaced that of an inactive host. But because you haven't yet added yourself to the full list of active hosts, I have chosen what I hope might be an acceptable image to you (over the default picture of a cup of green tea). It would be great if you would now do two things:
Check or change the 'featured host' image allocated to you. Edit it at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/16, or undo my changes if you don't wish to be 'featured'.
Create a 'host entry' for yourself, and choose a relevant picture - click the 'Experienced editor?' button in the TH Header to formally sign up to create a separate entry on the full list of all 89 current hosts which new editors can view.
I generally include them both places if there's a reason to have an external links section (because there are other external links to be included) and generally don't when an external link that's already in the article or infobox is the only reasonable external link. Not arguing, though! :) Just discussing different approaches! --valereee (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Valereee, Hello! Yeah, I honestly don't have any strong feelings on this, my mindset at the time was "let's leave the poor guys something." I looked at his university-page and it was just disheartening. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The year is also uncited, and probably should also have been removed if I'd strictly followed that policy. Like you, I wanted to leave something, and that didn't seem like a controversial assertion -- his photo shows a man who is believably 60ish -- so I left it. If someone had argued to remove it altogether, I wouldn't have argued. --valereee (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Did you really? I saw the first citation was to his CV and that it wasn't there (or did I miss it?), but also saw that again it was a not-unlikely year, given his photo and date of bachelor's. I'm glad to hear it was there! I always kind of feel like removing the entire birthdate is a little aggressive. I don't mind removing day/month if it's not sourced, as that's just a privacy risk. The year doesn't seem like a privacy risk as much to me; anyone make a pretty good guess on that, and there's not the same risk of identity theft or doxxing, which is what I'm mostly worried about Wikipedia enabling. But it's definitely imperfect application of policy on my part. --valereee (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not cited in the lead, but in the Early life section, page 5 in his book [17]. And that is year, you were quite right to remove month and day. This is "allowed", but only citing some stuff in the lead confuses everybody sooner or later. On including, I generally think following WP:BLP closely is the way to go, if nobody bothered to note the birthyear, neither should we. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
VQuakr Yes, point. TBH, it seemed as a good place as any to note it on-WP, but there is a chance that the article could have something useful for the WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I have read all that and now I cannot understand why he has posted here too. If this were my TP it would have been consigned to the recycling by now. Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yuz Asaph:: Information about Yuz Asaph and Roza Bal appears in the book "The Roza Bal, Beyond the DaVinci Code" by Fida Hassnain and Suzanne Olsson, Dastgir Publishers, Kashmir, 2004, p. 307,308,309. They co-authored three books together, most of the information appears in all three. Dastgir publishers is a standard publishing house, not self-published.Sunami70 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Sunami70Sunami70 (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for getting things right with your response here! The first step in creating an article must always be to find proof that the topic is notable. I wish other editors would emphasise it. Maproom (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if my edit to Dan Crenshaw would be accepted if I add this citation https://twitter.com/i/status/1192925646458105856 It's a video of him talking at the event and includes him making the comment alluding to doxxing. If there is anything else I should do to meet the standards needed, please let me know. Thank you.
OldBookClubFan (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello OldBookClubFan! No, twitter, YT, instagram, blogs etc is useless for this. WP takes WP:BLP seriously (when we notice that we should anyway), and that's not the only policy/guideline that matters here. This is a very recent event, and it is not necessary that it is included in the article quickly (if at all).
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well GGS. MarnetteD|Talk16:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
CiaPan (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
