User talk:Ceoil/Archive 13

Cropping[edit]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dark side[edit]

I totally interviewed a member of a fairly important goth band today. No, not Eldritch. Maybe some day. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check your e-mail. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Themed link [1]. And hey, look at this. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what anyone says, this is a great song. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So tired and busy these days. Give me motivation in YouTube form. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't do heavy Wiki work until Monday (as explained in my last e-mail). The documentary is no longer showing for free on cable anymore, unfortunately, but then again I can pick up the DVD of it at a department store for ten dollars. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I need help finding a source that explicitly states what the proper tracklisting of Chronic Town is supposed to be. Right now there's a bit of editing back and forth because the cheeky devils arranged the tracklisting differently on the sleeve and on the record, and all the sources I have don't establish a consensus over which is the proper tracklist. WesleyDodds (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the weekend: get out and dance. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear. I never like the whole thin white duke stuff. Lets dance maybe, but Modern Love? And I see youv;e been editing Tin Machine. Dear, dear, oh dear. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing David Bowie and clicked on some links. Is this better? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're friends again. Be more careful in future though. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This guy can be really good at times. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Microdisney sucks so hard . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to start work on the Queen album soon, but NSR77 wants me to work with him on Disintegration, and how can you say no to that? Once we rewrite the page I'll drop you a line so you can add your touches. I know you want to. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best part about it is that in the Cure bio I have, Lol Tolhurst basically says, "Yeah, they were right to fire me". WesleyDodds (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, got a recommended alterna--er, indie album for this month's project newsletter? WesleyDodds (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your favorite song from Singles Going Steady? WesleyDodds (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the page history at Joy Division for the past day or so. Do you think I should just keep reverting these IPs? WesleyDodds (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is the correct answer, although "Promises" would have also been acceptable. WesleyDodds (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check your e-mail. Hilariousness within. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC query[edit]

I've left a query for you at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Third of May 1808, per the instructions at WP:FAC: Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod replied on the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Ceoil, your kind thoughts are much appreciated. Notwithstanding the guilty pleasure of having one's name affixed to a scribbling, I am as proud to contribute to Wikipedia as to write a column for print. In fact, I am certain that my postings here, and the resulting copy edits of my contributions, have provided indispensable experiences in preparing me to work for publication. So, even if I go away from time to time, I am still learning, not leaving. Cheers, JNW (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future GBS[edit]

Ceoil—I suppose the GBS article will reach FA status eventually, but am striving for quality simply for the sake of quality. I see two great deficiencies in the article: (1)It lacks a complete listing of Shaw's writing and (2) it ignores Shaw's humanity. (He was not made of cardboard.)

I have been working on the list at User:Wugo/GBS Biblio because the process of creating it is slow and would be disruptive if attempted in the article itself. I have the list complete already, except for the external links. Right now I'm struggling to add Getting Married to Shaw's books at Wikisource. (This has been a learning experience for me, which is not yet complete.)

I now have all Shaw's prefaces and all useful collections of his correspondences on my bookshelf and believe I can use them to add warmth and breath to his presently cold body.

I should be most grateful for any contributions you may wish to make. What do you have in mind? Wugo (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now watching William Butler Yeats and Sean O'Casey. Please don't expect a lot from me—my time is strictly budgeted. Wugo (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

next ...[edit]

I'm not sure about Mona - too many theories and theorists, I suspect. Maybe Suerat, but I need to cut my time here down. Have you asked Suzanne Lesch, who took Lisa del Giocondo to FA very largely by herself? Johnbod (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the pic at the top! I really am trying to cut down. I did a good bit on the Virgin of the Rocks & the amount of self-confident good-faith idiocy (even just on the names - my favourite guy was certain it was "Virgin on the Rocks") you see maintaining it is rather depressing. Mona I bet is much worse. I have a book on Suerat (the Thames & Hudson series one), so no doubt would chip in there. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil: Time permitting, Saturn sounds like fun. Thanks for asking! Cheers, JNW (talk) 02:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil, sounds like a logical choice..I'll give it a shot. Modernist (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Request[edit]

It's 10:30 P. M. (22:30) as I write this. I need to sleep. I'll get around to the copy edit in the morning. See ya. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 02:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good night, I guess. I'll tell you when I get to the article. Tell me exactly what its problem is and I can do better. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 02:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. I'm watching the FA nomination. I'll see whether or not I'll vote (I don't want to be the only one voting). Once again, any time. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things. One, I do this because I like to feel useful on Wikipedia. Two, I can tell you need CE help because of how you just went back and fixed yourself on my talk page. Three, I'll watch the article you asked me to. Do you think it needs a CE right now, before you start expanding it? Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, feel free to sign my guesbook (hint, hint) or drop me a comment at my editor review. Thanks. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For getting every one together to get The Third of May to Fa. Nice job. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 16:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1808[edit]

Sure Paul, I will support, but it would be better to wait until Noetica performs his magic. Tony (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Ceoil: Much appreciated! These collaborations are immensely interesting, and you continue to be a driving force in shaping featured articles, both by your own contributions and by bringing others into the mix. Best wishes, JNW (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh thanks! I can only echo JNW above. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just take it straight, really. I think you may be right about Saturn, btw. Just needs a bit of a push. Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, thank you for the appreciation, its a pleasure collaborating with you on these projects, I think the group is very strong..and it is very cool because each of us have different strengths to bring to the articles. Modernist (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the FA-Team[edit]

Welcome, and thank you for joining the FA-Team, which I believe will benefit immensely from you experience with featured articles. I'm sure you have watchlisted the FA-Team page and would encourage you to watchlist those missions which interest you. We are in a state of flux right now as the first mission has been hugely successful but is still being played out. After this, we will analyse how the team helped, and decide where we go from here. Your contributions to the discussion would be very welcome. Geometry guy 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping![edit]

User talk:Roger Davies#The Third of May 1808 --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 20:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saturn[edit]

It's been in the doldrums since I created it, but there's plenty of material on it: I was planning to go back and FAC it almost straight away, but it was around that time that I started getting pissed off with WP and jacked it in for a while. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be around much for the next two weeks, so I won't be able to do a lot on it. I'm sure it will get a good makeover though.

Brain dump: Licht is handy on this, I assume somebody has that (My copy seems to have evaporated). I think most of the stuff in the article as it stands can be traced back to Licht. A checklist of what I think is obviously missing (mostly influences stuff): something on his development as an artist from the happy go-lucky portrait painter (The Colossus as a forerunner), the painting as a metaphor for Spain, place within the Black Paintings, some discussion of the "Javier as the artist" theory. We'll have to see if we can get a copy of the chalk drawing too, as it speaks a thousand words as to the influence of Rubens. Oh, and, not to pick at scabs, but somebody will have to write transfer to canvas, it really is too interesting not to have an article on, and we can't have a redlink in the lead. A decent version of the painting would help too - we have about twenty versions but they are of variable quality. I think I picked the best one, but it is maybe a little dark. Yomangani ^talk 10:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roger[edit]

Not RoDger. Yomangani ^talk 10:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson[edit]

Hi, are you trying to help get the article up to FA?Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 10:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thats ok i guess. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just be merciful, im just about staying afloat with everyone else's requests. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 15:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, are their any policies on people hi up in wikipedia who just ignore your messages, i find it rather insulting actually, i was wondering, just because they have made 50,000 edits to my 11,000 they feel they have the right to not reply, its SO rude. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 16:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Thanks for the recognition, Ceoil. I'm happy to help with such fine articles. I look forward to further collaborations.

Best wishes to you.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reminder[edit]

Hi Ceoil,

I hate to be one of those guys (especially given some of the unfortunate history in this area), but I'd like to give you a quick reminder that we're not really supposed to use fair use images in userspace.

Happy editing! henrik•talk 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations[edit]

for the Third of May 1808, reaching FA and it's still April.....Modernist (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, congratulations Ceoil. I'll be happy help next time too, if you like.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the star. Flowers are more of a RL thing for me. How is Caspar Friedrich getting along? Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit dubious that a lot of it was made up by authors & journalists at some point, though obviously there were real conventions. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ips" ? Johnbod (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, of course - but I was thinking more of Victorian Grub Street hacks, not to mention their Renaissance predecessors. Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me about it! I should delete my watchlist really. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even say that! Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Third of May 1808[edit]

Thank you, Ceoil, for all of your contributions to The 3rd, which were instrumental in getting the piece to FA status. If it reaches the main page next weekend, I would like all the contributing editors to meet in a pub to celebrate. Barring that, since I gather that some live in Ireland, some in England, and some in the U.S., a virtual toast will be in order. Cheers, JNW (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, it is just wrong to assume that everyone has to fly here, to the U.S. Ireland is actually on our short-list of places to see, when, and, if, finances ever permit. Several friends have been trying to get me to visit and paint landscapes there for years. Second, if you absolutely have to brawl, I will support you from a safe distance. And third: The Pogues! A close friend introduced me to their music over twenty years ago, and I have always been a fan of Fairytale of New York. As apt to make me weep sentimentally as [2]. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if I were in fighting trim I would be of no use in a scrum, and fearful of disabling the painting hand. I hail from a long line of pugilistic cowards, and with age am increasingly seeking the balm of more spiritual pursuits...in moderation. Yes, Blue is a beauty. JNW (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all depends. On a good day I imagine I look like this: [3]; on a bad day: [4]. Still, one tries to look sharp regardless. JNW (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, JNW is very taken with your achievements—he thanked you here too. But don't get too full o' yourself! :D –Outriggr § 03:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil: Thanks for your assessment, and upgrade re: my role on Las Meninas [5]. Looking forward to the virtual toast on Saturday! JNW (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the very moment, it's a bottle of ale for me. Cheers and congratulations, JNW (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caillebotte[edit]

I have not read it yet (I will), but just a glance supports your judgment. Any time that many words are unloaded onto an article, without cites or sources, it does suggest a class essay or, if the quality is good, a text copied from literature somewhere. If we can hunt up something in our books, we can add a little to the article. More later. JNW (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, I have read large swaths of it. It is surely original research, in that it ventures some debatable conjecture regarding the painter's motives, and needs a ton of copy editing to make it usable. It is reasonable to believe that this was a student's essay, and that sources were used, although not included here. There is sophisticated and lengthy interpretation of the composition, but this, too, could use a lot of boiling down to essentials. It is sprawling and, at present, unsupported by refs, and doesn't pass as a Wikipedia article. Transferring it to the talk page was a fair and tactful decision. Well done. JNW (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right re: half essay, half copy. On May 3: the added image of the royal family is a nice touch--I added the wonderful Gautier quote for the caption in the Goya article, the baker and his wife thing. As for the Guernica caption, I am inclined to play devil's advocate and say that not every image needs a caption. Then again, I might just be lazy. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You never rest! The Bosch looks like a lot more than a sketch, and from the edit history it appears you have done a ton of gardening. Probably I won't be able to add much, possessing little on Bosch. Yes, I will be busy over the next few days: the end of the semester, a solo exhibition opening, etc. But I will check in when possible. Cheers, JNW (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments[edit]

Your comments at Johnbod's talkpage are not helpful. Please do not defend incivility, and then accuse the warning admin of harassment. --El on ka 02:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be my guest. You may however wish to review this AN thread first though.[6] --El on ka 02:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the edit summary was grossly uncivil. That's the core issue here, that the summary was inappropriate. I am frankly surprised that you are continuing to defend it. --El on ka 02:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, you are the one who jumped in, 5 days after the original incident, to stir it up again, and further escalate things by accusing me of harassment, on two pages now. And now you're also threatening an ANI thread? Talk about "out of all proportion", see WP:KETTLE. To answer your original question though, yes, while this project of calming the ethnic dispute is in-process, I will absolutely continue to contact any editor who jumps into the middle of it with an uncivil comment or attack. It is now my recommendation that you drop this, instead of continuing to escalate this even further. --El on ka 02:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was you returned with a long moralising and self justifying post, which was totally out of context. My whole point is that you wont let it go: "to stir it up again"? Such neck. I notice you are cross posting to confuse and accuse me of what I origionally said about you. It was you who first cross posted, on my talk, with a veiled warning.

Jumping in is rich. The sheer dishonest way you are conducting this beggars belief. Ceoil (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I don't wish to offend anyone here, but... this seems to be a relatively trivial matter that isn't worth the ill-will it seems to be causing between three excellent editors. Yes, the edit summary was incivil, and yes, ideally Johnbod might apologise, but I think he and everyone else involved recognises the facts of the situation without his having to grovel over a chance temperamental remark. Can we all take a step back, perhaps, and agree to let this go? Kafka Liz (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I wasn't entirely sure on whose page I ought to post this... Ceoil, I apologise if posting here makes you feel singled out - such was not my intent. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen all this. Not sure who I'm supposed to apologise to. On checking, the problem was in fact not caused by the template-inserter (some time last year), but a later rearranger (this January). I suggest we all drop this, but thanks for the support. Johnbod (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly question[edit]

Hi Ceoil - I have an idea as to how your name is pronounced, but I'm not sure my scanty knowledge of Gaelic is quite up to the task. Can you tell me? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil - Thanks for the note, and for your kind words about the Book of Kells. I really enjoyed working on it and was glad to be able to help. About the other night, I'm glad everything has settled down. I just hated seeing everyone up in arms about something so trivial. Cheers, Kafka Liz (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]