Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:59, 16 February 2011

An Irishman abroad tells it like it is

Do you really want to know? Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw this as well and thought of you. It's good. Is "telling it like it is" common over there? Must be freeing. Riggr Mortis (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd be considered reserved. Ceoil (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Empty

Emptied your page, huh? And took the template off my page - I considered it a badge of honour. Is this pre-xmas tidying, or what? Well it won't stop me from bothering you about Olivia - she's still waiting for your magic touch & tweaks and there's a bit more to be done there. Really only posting because I can't bear to see an empty page - I have a compulsive need to fill it with writing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Today is a new day, so I binned the lot. Yeah, pre-xmas tidying, I also cut my hair, and threw out my flares. Its not 1976 anymore, have to accept that. Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

...make sure you digitalised all your Bay City Rollers records :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have more class than that dude....The Sweet. And they still rock bty, stop sniggering. Ceoil (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cut your hair? Threw away your flares? Oh, no, what's happening? Too much snow? Cabin fever? Pre-holiday blues? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Combination of all the above. And a few things I cant speak of. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds dire. I'm off to buy a xmas tree - deck the halls & all that. Be well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Grand, talk when you get back. Ceoil (talk) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Popping in and out today. About the Magdalen, shouldn't be a surprise to you that I like the page quite a bit - what's not to like about a woman reading, let alone a 15th century woman. At some point, when I had an idle moment some weeks ago, I did a quick search on her and came across something (can't remember now whether in a book or paper) that the reading is significant because very uncommon for a 15th century woman to read. Let me know if you think it's worth adding, and I'll find it again. Also her underskirt is brocade - very expensive and most likely the reason the green overskirt is hitched up to show off the opulence of the underskirt, for whatever that's worth. Don't know how much detail to women's fashions is given in the sources .... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Have ordered some sources, would like to do a lot more work on the page. I'm getting quite interested in women's fashion from this period. Oddly. Ceoil (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Almost forgot - 'if you think it's worth adding...Please feel free to add, or send details of the source. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. When I have time - busy time of year. I know a little about the fashions of the period too. Her headdress is unusual & that her hair unbound significant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dont keep me in suspence though......Ceoil (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I read somewhere, but can't remember where, about the significance of van der Weyden depicting a 15th century woman reading - not exactly common for women of the period. I only scanned quickly ... but seemed to have something to do with women, literacy, 15th century, van der Weyden. Will have to search again and find it - whatever it is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Related, but not exactly, there are two key articles cited in the Lady in Yellow, both from the Burlington, both in JSTOR...I dont suppose you would do the honours. (cough). Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I might be able to get them for you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Oho, ooooh Ceoil (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and all that. Enjoy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Got em. Tks v much. Ceoil (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed. You've been very industrious. Happy Christmas to you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

and industrious today too! hmm ..... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the telly on x-mass day is always a bit rubbish. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That was extremely feeble payback for pretending to block me recently - not once but twice! Didn't have the heart for more - since it was x-mas day, after all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You got me back, eh, how? Did I miss revenge? I'm doubly aware now anyhow. Ceoil (talk) 39:81, 43 December 1812 (UTC)

Olivia & WBY

I've hit a snag with Olivia and need your input. I have a lot of information about the poems WB wrote for her, her role as muse, etc., but don't think her page is the right place for it. I haven't looked to see what pages exist for his poetry, but am inclined to add the detail elsewhere and summarize on her page. What do you think? Also, where in the article to summarize? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sub-articles on paricular poems would be better. I can do a few of these. Prob better not to summarise, blue links in the 'Yeats' section would be enough. Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I was thinking. Didn't seem to fit in anywhere. I'll let you go on the subarticles and you can plunder my notes too. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Have not forgotten about this, but in the country and without books. For only a day or two. Ceoil (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about it - it will get done when it gets done. Without books, huh? Hard to imagine. At least you have internet access... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Btw - censored your remarks a bit on my page - hope you don't mind. Don't let this bother you - I've replaced the images on Olivia's page and will send an email to try to get copyright information on the Olivia image. As you know, I can be very persistent if necessary. Your work in the past few weeks has been so nice, and I hate to think my thin-skinned reactions made you disappear. Also, am quite enamoured with van der Weyden's work, so you've been giving me a daily dose of 15th century eye-candy - would hate to see that stop. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Stacking up posts here - re the images, not saying this lightly, but I think it should be let go. I really don't mind losing the ones in Olivia, but I do mind the way the policy is inconsistent. There's a discussion here btw about the images on Ezra's page. I suspect HD's will probably come out okay. The others were always a bit dodgy according to Elcobbola, as we know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well I missed a lot of it this evening, but if you think so then ok. And thanks for the censorship, prob wise. Re eye candy, I think I can get a relatively substantial article out of the reading woman, I've come across three points of interest -hooks- but not a proper examination of them yet. Ceoil (talk) 02:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do think so. As for the eye candy, glad to hear you've found more on Magdalen - interested in sharing, or not yet? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The description of her dress, the link with the Campin, the fact of a woman reading, and its early role in determining how Mary was depected by later artists (never in white). Speculation on the larger work I cant find nothing on, not even a copy of the Swedish drawing. So far researching the painting has been like trying to get blood out of a turnip. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I have seen other paintings of her, always reading. Wondered about that. I found one (will prob. never find it again) of her writing, which was interesting. I think you'll pull together a good piece. Always thought the reading was significant, & what van der Weyden does with the color of her dress in that piece is what I think is eye candy..... I can do a database search if you'd like - wouldn't mind getting away from the modernists at this point. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday and today are two more disaster notches to place on your already heavy modernist belt. You are a though cookie, I'll give you that ;) Ceoil (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Not so much tough as persistent, sometimes. Those modernists though, jeez, they are trouble, at least here on wikipedia. Interesting, huh? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well Ezra was a deeply unpleasant man, who if Id met him, would probably have punched. H.D. was likely not much fun to be around either, if you were attached to or cared about her. Yeats in his final years was deeply conceited, and bascially strangled the possibility of any younger sucessor. So there you go. Austin Clarke and Patrick Kavanagh would be more to my taste as people, although they dont "hit" me in the same way. Go figure. Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think generally they were all deeply unpleasant & unpleasant to write about. I need to give it a rest, I think. I'm jealous of you and your eye candy - I've said this before, I need to find something pretty to work on or give it up. Later ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider the work on the Shakespears as pretty, but then I am male, and as we learned recently on Riggr's page; all men are sad bastards; always were, always will be. I suppose if you were to drop in a bit on the woman reading page, I wouldn't react by spending my time scheming how best to take care of the "Truthkeeper88 problem". Which would be a plesant change for you. Ceoil (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a pleasant change & thanks. I will drop in, but I'm not yet up to speed on the sources, so I'll just follow you for now. I guess the Shakespear women articles are prettyish - still stinging a bit about the loss of the Olivia image, but I've put so much time into images that I've given up fighting that battle. I missed the all men are sad bastards conversation ... have to give that some thought. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hi Ceoil, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! , , ...Modernist (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers matey, watching vids now. Will return the favour and happy returns....Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

X

Thanks Ceoil and Merry Christmas. Left note on my page. Best wishes, --TisTRU (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to catch, up, new year talk again. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Ceoil. I know I haven't been very active in the last few months but I hope to return at some time in the future... Lithoderm 22:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy being young and stupid first. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-notable bands

Check out that link I posted on that other site on Christmas Day. Keep an eye on your inbox for more details soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Can do neither, am in Macroom for the holidays, no email, no other site password. But I'm all excited, with knives sharpened. Think what you did to Interpol, and we did to Oasis, x 100. Ceoil (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not at all surprised that certain sections of Ireland are lacking in basic web capabilities. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ooo, your so going to be finished when I finish my diatribe. I don't even to have to wait to hear yer reedy singing and 'far away' guitars. Ceoil (talk) 03:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly a lot of the former, but the latter won't be found. Also, are we going to help spruce up Pixies in the new year? WesleyDodds (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Dont worry, nobody listens to me anyway, and I'm sure its quite adequate for a bunch of Americans. And yes to the Pixies, just spotted your cmt on the FAR. I was watching their acquistic performance MTV thing earlier; sucked. Ceoil (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

here is a link to a very strange song. Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Will get to it sometime today. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Gotitallwight? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, sorry forgot to say. I'll pm you on the other site with my 'thoughts', which are v positive. Heard the new Polly Harvey?... She's finally doing a Kate Bush! Its a great album, says someone who thinks she's been dour and dirgy since after down by the water. Ceoil 23:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been putting off acquiring PJ Harvey albums for too long. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Descent

I can't imagine there would be worries about COI, it's just a painting I researched a bit. Glad to learn you're pushing the Descent, and I'd be happy to supply references from doc. Not sure how much time - I'm trying to re-write Highway 61 Revisited. Why is section on history of painting now called 'Providence'? I thought that was a theological term, also enigmatic film by Alain Resnais, and capital of Rhode Island! Is this perhaps a mis-spelling of Provenance? I think I'd prefer 'History of painting'. Best wishes for cool yule, happy new year, and all that jazz. Mick gold (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me in loop. I've appreciated your work on van der Weyden, especially the Portrait of a Lady. Sadly, PLOM is now finished, BBC won't commission any more, though I've heard The Descent will be released on DVD in 2011.

I have in my computer, texts of various articles on The Descent, including: Compassio And Co-Redemptio In Roger Van Der Weyden's Descent From The Cross by Otto G. Von Simson; Symbol and meaning in northern European art of the late middle ages and the early Renaissance by James H. Marrow; The Errant Image: Rogier Van Der Weyden’s Deposition From The Cross And Its Copies by Amy Powell; The Problem of Lo Spasimo of the Virgin in Cinquecento Paintings of the Descent from the Cross by Harvey E. Hamburgh; The New Pictorial Language of Rogier van der Weyden by Lorne Campbell (from: Rogier van der Weyden: Master of Passions, Leuven Catalogue, 2010)

I can easily send them to you as attachments if you give me email address. Mick gold (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the above and below. Very much appreciated, Mick. Ceoil 03:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Magdalen Reading

Hi Ceoil, interesting for me to see you've used the pictures I took in the Calouste Gulbenkian Museum. The museum seems not to be aware. It will surely be the subject of a new article on the Dutch version. Best wishes for 2011! Thundercloud (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ceoil, while translating the English version, I see that The National Gallery describes the figure to the left of Magdalen as St John the Baptist and the article here describes the figure as female and part of Catherine. The figure on the left side of the London panel doesn't wear a blue cloak. Thundercloud (talk) 06:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

They also said that Catherine is likely facing away from Mary which looking at the pieces makes no sence, and contradicts all other sources. I didn't rely on the NG so much here, but if I mis-read tell me. Ceoil (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

NG states that the figure to the left of Magdalen is John the Evangelist (not the Baptist as I said above) and so, to my opinion, the article has to be rewritten in that way. The phrase in the article The Stockholm drawing is a partial copy of the original work and omits large tracks. In the drawing the figure of John the Evangelist is to the far left, kneeling before the Virgin and child. His clothes reappear in The Magdalen Reading, and it is from this fact that it has been linked as part of the same work as the Lisbon fragment makes no sense because no Lisbon fragment shows any part of the clothing of John the Evangelist. The verticale structure behind the head of Catherine can be seen behind Joseph as well an if there are several windows in the original painting, she might be looking to the right. Is the Stockholm drawing somewhere on the internet or could you send me a copy? Thundercloud (talk) 07:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to give you my second opinion. Do not read what I said about the connection of the clothing of John the Evangelist and the Lisbon fragment, that is obviously correct. I think only the part about the figure to the left of Magdalen is wrong and should be John the Evangelist. Greetings Thundercloud (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings too, I'm sure. I havn't found a version of the Swedish drawing in books or on the internet yet, and for a few other reason can we keep this source search to the talk where it is is collected and reference -able. Ceoil (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

More Greetings. The book Rogier Van der Weyden: Master of Passion by Lorne Campbell & Jan van der Stock, 2009, Davidsfonds/Leuven, illustrates the NG Magdalen, the Gulbenkian St Joseph (?), St Catherine (?), and the Stockholm drawing, "Virgin and Child with St John the Baptist, St John the Evangelist, and a Bishop Saint". This book is catalogue of exhibition Rogier van der Weyden, Master of Passion at Leuven M Museum, Sep-Dec 2009. In catalogue, NG Magdalen and Gulbenkian St Joseph are no. 56 (p.441) and identified as "Two Fragments from a Virgin and Child with Six Saints". Stockholm drawing is no. 57 (p.445), and commentary on drawing suggests that NG Magdalen and Gulbenkian Joseph "both represent the altarpiece's right-hand side – which is not worked out in the drawing – the Stockholm drawing and the Lisbon fragment provide an image of its left side". Thus the Stockholm drawing shows the whole of robe of St John the Evangelist, which appears on left side of NG Magdalen. And head of Gulbenkian Joseph fits onto body which is behind NG Magdalen. Catalogue states "The pen drawing is regarded as a copy after an altarpiece by Rogier van der Weyden with a seated Virgin and Child surrounded by a number of saints". In the Stockholm drawing, the figures are (left to right) Bishop, St John the Baptist, Virgin and Child, St John the Evangelist. There is a line between Bishop and St John the Baptist, and catalogue suggests that is where Gulbenkian Catherine (?) might have fitted. Mick gold (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Campbell's big NG catalogue has both the Stockholm drawing & a reconstruction drawing of the whole altarpiece, based on Ward (pp 398-99). I'll edit up from this but not today. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for your contributions. I've been writing a Dutch version of the article (where my name is Paul Hermans). I've tried to convince Ceoil that the person to the left of Magdalen is John the Evangelist but without success so far (see above) :-). If anyone would be able to take a picture of the drawing and send it to me, I would be much obliged (sorry for my poor English). I'll copy all your comments to the Dutch discussion page of the article. Lots of happiness in 2011! Thundercloud (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And returns to you Thundercloud, my apologies if I misread. Shouldn't effect you helping here. Help is appreciated, and yeah, seeing you in the new year. Ceoil 02:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'd downloaded some stuff about MM but forgot to send when you were gone from email. Now sent. Hope it's helpful. I'm busy for the next few weeks and won't be editing, but will be checking in occasionally. TK88 (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Got them and replied. Many thanks. Ceoil 18:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Came down with a cold and lost my brain. I've sent on a pdf about Mary Magdalen that I haven't the energy to read. Two sets of eyes are better than two. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:Ezra Pound

Of course, I can understand, that's fine. I see the issue is by no means resolved yet, but I'd rather stay out of that particular issue, as myself and SlimVirgin do not see eye-to-eye. Thanks for the note. What's the article you're having issues with? J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, concerning File:Fotografía del Aquelarre de Juan Laurent.jpg, the image page would need a translation to English, but the question is when the photographer died. If it was more than 100 years ago (as it seems to be), it could simply be tagged with {{PD-old}} and the date of publication wouldn't be at all important. Same applies to File:Witches.jpg- the question is when the painter died; I note the painter isn't mentioned on that image page. The second question is more difficult. The modern recreations would not be in the public domain, but I could see the use of low resolution copies falling under the NFCC. I guess we'd have to see the finished article before we'd be able to judge that; if there was significant discussion of the modern reproductions, rather than just "some modern artists have attempted to recreate it", then the use of the modern reproductions in the appropriate section (though the lead should remain a free image, perhaps a compilation of the original pieces) would probably be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your page

Nifty photos. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Ceoil 00:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for the peace offering. Accepted! I don't really get in trouble very often. I've learned (pretty much) where the lines are. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you meant about self-awareness, but I'm not very bright. Please explain. I can take it. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say you are bright enough tbh. Don't mind that last outburst, my bad...Despite it, I still say peace in our time; the odd skirmish here and there excepted...call it the 'new' new deal. Ceoil 23:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thanks to Moni, I was youtubing around today, looking for something from Steel Magnolias, and came across this; not sure if it's the song I like, or the guy, but I hope you forgive bad negligent friend SG, and have a wonderful 2011 !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I can see how you would like both things about that link. Happy returns. Moni doesn't seem like a happy camper these days on wiki, I'm following her arguments, and I don't blame her for being fecked off. Poor thing. Ceoil 11:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Phillips collection

The article about the The Phillips Collection and the references added are being attacked by an IP who clearly is an editor in disguise and who doesn't like doing editing just tagging, I would appreciate your input there. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Only five years late....

finished first six episodes of The Thick of It - very funny :)))) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think thats rough, jeez. Larry Sanders x 7. Ceoil 03:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Larry Sanders is fantastic ++++ loved it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Larry Saunders is 15 years ish old though now. The link I gave is nastier but not funnier, never made it, but still something of a lost / almost classic. PhoneShop, Party Down, Louie, and the first three seasons of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia do it at the moment. Ceoil 04:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

You Were Right

Thanks for link, good band, good song, I could only hear one Dylan reference & wikipedia enlightened me. Can't remember if I gave you this Dylan link Mick gold (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to leave comments on the Maya stelae review page. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Negligent

Would Ceoil, Dodds Inc have time to look at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/U2 3D/archive2? It became such a jumble that I had to restart it for a fresh look.

Here's some Chenoweth for you (Lord knows why they cast that dork Broderick in that movie). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

His reaction shots are a bit eh - stiff, yeah. The origional is so beautiful. Always prefered Paul to John. Ceoil 23:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Olivia Shakespear

Just to keep you busy, when you have a chance I'd like to know what you think of the comments on the Olivia GA review. I've already trimmed back a bit, and my choices seem to be to hack the article down and take out the soap opera love story, add more, (but what?), or let the review quickfail if the reviewer doesn't believe it satisfies the GA criteria. You know the subject and at one point we'd planned to work on this together, but I ran with it & you were sidetracked. I told you, I don't like reviews .... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You can ignore the above. I've asked for a quickfail based on additional comments from the reviewer. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not so sure about shapping Olivia for Shakespear. Certainly in paragraphs discussing her marraige you cannot, and it doesn't sit too well in the other sections either, imo. Ceoil 20:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added responses (after multiple edit conflicts with you) but generally don't agree with much it. I do think a section should be added about her work, but the sources are so slim it's difficult - anyway will see what I can do. As it happens it's the first GA this editor has reviewed, and honestly I don't want to hack the article to pieces for a bauble on my page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about the edit conflict thing. But be cool, you have a tendancy for panic and flight, and there is not a tight time limit, and you can reason with the reviewer. Ceoil 21:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Panic and flight - hmm. Have to think about that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Having written a soap opera - but perhaps the best rendition of that particular soap opera that exists on the internet - this little woman will just flee into her kitchen and mind her business. Seriously though, thanks for the advice and help - I'll see how it plays out. I'm working on putting together a section about her work atm. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Stick to your guns. Esp on the small colourful details, its them that brings the person alive for the reader and stop them falling asleep. No reason for the article to be dry and humourless. Ceoil 22:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In case in wasn't evident - I was being sarcastic which never ever works in this medium. Sticking to my guns. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The guns thing was just reassurance, unless you think I think you'd be happier in the kitchen with pots and pans! Or something. Anyway, I'm not that much of a bastard. Ceoil 22:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

O dear - I knew that didn't come across well. You are not a bastard and I am not the pots and pans / kitchen sort of person. As it happens I'm good at doing the kitchen thing while I'm writing - although I'm also good at burning supper! Struck the quickfail request for now until the next panic sets in (that's a joke btw ... ) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To avoid further confusion please write ****JOKE NOW FOLLOWING**** when kidding around on this page, cause usually only serious business here. M'dear. Ceoil 23:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Burning smells coming from the kitchen. Not a joke. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

O jesus christ. <gulp> Ceoil 23:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Edible after all - phew. Are you interested in swapping articles for a bit? I've made some major changes to Olivia tonight and could use your keen eye for feedback. I'd like to take a rest from that page to finish reading about and adding to the MM iconography. Feel free to c/e or fix or do whatever to Olivia. I've left some fairly large commented out sections in the text for the moment, but if the single section with the novels works then I'll remove them. Just wanted you to know what that's all about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Bantering not allowed after all. No joking or talking to pals according to comments on Talk:Olivia Shakespear/GA1. Anyway, it's closed now and I'll leave the page as is until I decide what, if anything, to do about it. Thanks for the help. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

When you've recovered from all of that tomfoolery nominate it at GAN, let me know, I'll do the review; if you take it to GAR that's what's likely to be recommemded anyway. In your own time though, there's obviously no rush. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Malleus, all that florid prose! You might rake me over the coals. Seriously, though, I want to let it sit for a bit and think about the pieces I took out, and also see what Ceoil's opinion is of the newer slimmer version. I appreciate your offer and will bring it back soonish - am busy workwise for the next few months and may actually have to cut down on my wiki time. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I liked all the little details, but will have a look, prob in a few hours. I know MF's offer of help will be greatly appreciated. Ceoil 20:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I've only looked at it very briefly. There might be a few things I'd trim back on, but my general view on prose style (re "florid") is that it's horses for courses. I wouldn't expect an article on an early 20th-century novelist to employ quite the same prose register as an article on Bayesian probability, for instance. Just as I wouldn't expect an article on the Riemann hypothesis to have much to say about Riemann's extra-marital relationships (if any). The point about using "Olivia" throughout the article rather than "Shakespear" is of course ludicrous given that there are two Shakespear's being discussed, Olivia and her husband. Malleus Fatuorum 20:18, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

And daughter. Very much agree on prose style, its appropriate given the context. Ceoil 20:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's my take too. The subject is what the subject is. Plain and simple. This is an offshoot, obviously, of Ezra Pound and W.B. Yeats. After the comments about insufficient detail, narrative, and color in Pound, I may have pushed the boundaries a bit more here than I normally do. I am happy to know that I can write beauty-parlor magazine worthy prose - might still be a market for that kind of stuff. As for the name, I started with Shakespear and Hope which seemed ludicrous so switched to Olivia and Shakespear. It's not as though we control the names of the people we write about - had she been Ann or Jane I still would have used the Christian name. Am keeping half an eye on this as I finish up with real work for the day. Will have a good look in a while, but thanks Malleus for the copyedits. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That you can write "beauty parlor magazine worthy prose" I'd consider to be a compliment, as those authors get paid unlike us saps, hence your writing clearly meets the "professional prose" standard that FAC demands. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Pixies

Hi Ceoil, how are you? I hope all is well. I wanted to ask you about something, and I hope it doesn't come out wrong, because I do intend it with the best of goodwill. But I was wondering if you might have time to contribute a little more to the Pixies article. When I signed on to help I wasn't expecting I was going to be doing the lion's share of the editing, but so far I have been. I am sincerely interested in helping fix up the article and seeing it keep its FA status, but I can't do it by myself. I think in both your and my cases, neither of us were major contributors to the article before this FAR, so I can guess that, like me, it is not necessarily your #1 pet project. Me too, there are a number of other articles I would like to be spending much of my time on, but I am willing to find a balance because I think it'd be a shame for the article to lose its FA, and because I have enough knowledge and interest in them to be of some use in improving the article. But again, I really can't do it all by myself, and I'm beginning to lose my motivation to keep at it. If you do happen have the possibility of contributing to it more, it'd be very much appreciated. Thank you! Sincerely, Moisejp (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, cool! Looking forward to collaborating with you. Thanks, and have a nice day! Moisejp (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The ladies

FYI - I've gone about as far as I can, for now, with the MM iconography. It could either be very complicated or simple - I chose simple, given the length of the article. I've covered the reading, the hair, the jar and the tears. So, it's ready to be copied from my sandbox to the mainspace - I've made the sandbox version consistent with the existing mainspace version. If you think it's ready, go ahead and copy, or I will when you get back.

Olivia is being reviewed again - just so you know. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It is, and sadly by me, a D-grade reviewer. Still, I think I can give TK a good run for her money. Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed this: File:Van Eyck - Arnolfini Portrait.jpg ? Same green robe w/ underskirt. Same head-dress. But this lady is pregnant ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Its very closely related, and most sources begin their speal on MM with 'painted around the same time as', but as far as I can find, dont expand on why that might be pertinat (weaker sources just say it because they have just copied the sentence). I can see why, but they never expand so I cant yet mention. Van Eyck and Rogier are very closely intertwined and fed off each other, and I like Van Eych a lot, but hes a tough guy to create articles on. I've tried, lost. Ceoil 18:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way that portrait is in london, and will be one of my first port of calls. I saw it when I was a teenager, but at that age was in an 'art sucks, techno techno techno' phase. Drat. Ceoil 18:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm sort of in a 15th century fashion phase at the moment - and was struck by the similarities. That's all. I may spend some time this afternoon reading about mid-15th century Netherlandish women's fashions. MM is very nicely dressed. Lucky you, having the opportunity to see these paintings. I think I must have passed right by that room when I was in last in London, was in a hurry of or something. Can't remember. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Its an extreamy interesting fashion phase, and the models depiced with raised eyelids, sharp cheekbones and enigmatic smiles. Take this for eg . Ceoil 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's left me sort of speechless. She doesn't seem happy. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say more unimpressed. This is unhappiness - Ceoil 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, yeah, that's unhappiness. The other girl is definitely unimpressed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No no no. This is an unhappy woman: . JNW (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That made me laugh. Very funny. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I have my moments. One laugh = three barnstars; it's been scientifically proven, though I can't find the source just now.... JNW (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2011

(UTC)

Thanks for helpin'...Modernist (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

JNW of course takes the biscut in enigmatic smiles. (that article is still one of my favourite wiki pages) Ceoil 22:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; enjoyed writing it, at Riggr's suggestion. Here's a video, selected especially to annoy, but doesn't it describe us well. . On my way out into the snow for the evening. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

For fuck sake. REM used to be good you know....a long long, long time ago. Did you notice Riggr's resurection today, and enjoy the snow. Ceoil 22:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I know Murmur is the Rosetta Stone, and it was something special . Not a purist, I've always had a weakness for later discs as well, and for sad tomatoes . Yes, I did notice a stirring from Riggr's lair. Cover the children's eyes and hide the valuables. JNW (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

STOMP STOMP. WHO WAKE ME UP? WHO MAKE NICE PAINTING ARTICLE ME WANT TO TOUCH? NO MORE PRETTY PICTURES OR ME STEAL CHINA, SLASH CANVASES. POUR ME STIFF DRINK! Riggr Mortis (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Jesus. Ceoil 05:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Fer Chrissakes. Glad I purchased Misplaced Pages Insurance Page Protection (TM). JNW (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If we ignore him, he might go away again. Ceoil 06:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure. You see how well that worked with me, even after I got a big Champagne sendoff. By the way, though appreciated, the stripper was gratuitous. JNW (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You loved it though, admit it. I wouldn't be wasting money like that on Riggr. A glass of coke and a firm handshake. Maybe a watch. Ceoil 06:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

A glass of coke? Thanks Ceoil. Or did you mean Coke? Either is fine, and for Riggr, capable of producing a--oh shut up please! This is an encyclopedia! Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I want a man with a spinal column injury. And Livor mortis? Another one for the Riggr family! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant actual coke. Ceoil 22:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was fun. And she made a strong case for the unflagging charms of nonagenarians. JNW (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen the Titian sale blurb on main page. Is the market picking up, or is it a blip. Ceoil 16:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry you removed your previous response, to which I had a delightful reply. Haven't seen about Titian, but it would be no surprise: this would reflect the continuing health of that market sector. The big ticket items are relatively unscathed. By the way, I still mean to add to the Ingres/Bertin article, but I literally have not been to my studio, and have not had access to half my library, for more than a week. JNW (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean the post where I hinted that your buff, dashing, with more than a hint of danger? That post? Gone, people will never know. Bertin will be an interesting article eventually, the more I read about Ingres the more he facinates and fustrates me, and its all there in this painting. No source on the extra finger yet though, but havnt bough any other books since I started. Irish people got each slapped with a heavy 'universal tax' in january, so as to pay for the banks, so times are tough. Ceoil 16:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ireland has received plenty of coverage for its financial woes--you just had to one-up us for financial mismanagement, which wasn't easy. This is the book for Ingres portraits, with paperback editions in the UK, but your local library may have it . JNW (talk) 17:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Finishing touch to this conversation: I'll be sending a pdf soonish about saints' tears, medieval attitudes to tears and van der Weyden - appropriate for the image of the tears above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The pdf I sent (which you may or may not have received) is about van der Weyden's use of similar iconography in other paintings. I admit, I haven't read it closely, but am wondering whether you want to include that information in MM? Let me know if you do, when you return. I have a weird compulsion to finish things once started - can't help it. Anyway, hope you're well & all that. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Today

Hi Ceoil, I left this note for Ed:

Hi Ed, thank you for your note on my talk page concerning the 3rr report that I filed. I have one problem with the article being protected as is. There is one to many jpgs of John Seery. The painting is in the template that I created and right underneath is an extra one. The extra one should be removed. I will ask Ceoil to remove it...Modernist (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

we needs admins for this, and I anit one. I'll ask somebody. Ceoil 22:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Book of Kells dab

Hi. You removed the hatnote I added to Book of Kells, with the edit summary "rm articles should be deleted". I don't really understand this; if you think that The Book of Kells (album) or The Book of Kells (audio drama) should be deleted, you should discuss that on those articles' pages and/or at AfD. But as long as the articles exist, it's appropriate for there to be a hatnote disambiguating those articles from the primary topic. Nobody's disputing that Book of Kells is the primary topic, but since it is conceivable that someone might be looking for the prog rock album or the Doctor Who audio play, there's no reason not to help them. So unless those articles are deleted, I think it's appropriate (per the guideline at WP:DISAMBIG) to have a hatnote at Book of Kells. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Francis_Bacon_Study_for_the_Nurse_in_the_Battleship_Potemkin.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Francis_Bacon_Study_for_the_Nurse_in_the_Battleship_Potemkin.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on February 12, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/February 12, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Misplaced Pages doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* 20:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The Symphony of Sorrowful Songs is a symphony in three movements composed by Henryk Górecki in Katowice, Poland, between October and December 1976. The work is indicative of the transition between Górecki's dissonant earlier manner and his more tonal later style. It was premièred on 4 April, 1977, at the Royan International Festival, with Stefania Woytowicz as soprano and Ernest Bour as conductor. A solo soprano sings a different Polish text in each of the three movements. The first is a 15th-century Polish lament of Mary, mother of Jesus, the second a message written on the wall of a Gestapo cell during World War II, and the third a Silesian folk song of a mother searching for her son killed in the Silesian uprisings. The first and third movements are written from the perspective of a parent who has lost a child, and the second movement from that of a child separated from a parent. The dominant themes of the symphony are motherhood and separation through war. Until 1992, Górecki was known only to connoisseurs, primarily as one of several composers responsible for the postwar Polish music renaissance. That year, Elektra-Nonesuch released a recording of the 15-year-old symphony that topped the classical charts in Britain and the United States. To date, it has sold more than a million copies, vastly exceeding the expected lifetime sales of a typical symphonic recording by a 20th-century composer. This success, however, has failed to generate interest in Górecki's other works. (more...)

U2 3D

Hi Ceoil, the editors working on the FAC for U2 3D have worked hard to address the comments you left and give the article a general polish. If you time, would you be able to revisit the nomination and see if they have been dealt with to your satisfaction? Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review of Leslie Hunter

Hi Ceoil,

I have just put a peer review request on the Wikiproject Bio page for Leslie Hunter, which is an article I have been working hard on over the last few months, and am now looking to get to FA. It seemed as if it might suit your subject area, according to the list of volunteers, so I hope you don't mind me approaching you directly to let you know about it. If you do have time to take a look, I would welcome any feedback.

Many thanks.--Korruski 09:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter

Hi, I would like to move this article on to FAC and would appreciate your comments. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

oh yes, the link is at WP:Peer review/Harold Pinter/archive2. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi Ceoil! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Misplaced Pages Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Misplaced Pages in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally got this article out of user space

Diana and Her Companions. I still need to add information to a few footnotes, but I think it's ready (and I was tired of waiting any longer). I've had hardly any spare time for months, recently, but I'll have a bit this weekend. Thanks for your help with it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Led Zeppelin Stairway to Heaven.ogg

Thanks for uploading File:Led Zeppelin Stairway to Heaven.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The update

Pixies soon, yes? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Gone?

I'm thinking you've taken this to heart and walked away. Having been on the receiving end of your protests when I tried to walk away, I'll have to think of something along the same lines to do to you. Am thinking about slapping a semi-retired or retired banner on your page. In the meantime, enjoy your break, but realize it's hard hard hard to walk away completely. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wondering the same. If you're leaving let us know, so we can throw a going away bash with inappropriate images and tacky captions. Hope all is well, JNW (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We are awaiting your return captain...Modernist (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Very much so. And so is she. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouple with an ISP change, amongst other things. I can connect now, and recieve email, but cant send. Have to go to work now explain better later.... Ceoil 08:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)