Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:49, 15 March 2011

Template:Archive box collapsible

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Novels/Members

Department of Repetitive Redundancy Department

--Moni3 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Ceoil's absence

Perhaps it was this chat that did it . Our boy has never been completely comfortable with respectability. I've already agreed to tell a fellow editor if I hear from him--I'll keep you posted, too, and hope you'll do the same. Best, JNW (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He's gone radio silent - I have sent email but no responses. I did think it might be the dreaded word admin, but who knows. If he's reading this, at least he should know he has friends here who care & would hate to see him go. I feel bad about this because he's so good at giving of himself and cheering up the rest of us when we're down, pulling us back from the brink, but when he's down he shuts himself off. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

His friends are concerned...Modernist (talk) 13:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

...concerned and worried. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry . JNW (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, saw that this morning before work. Now we can stop scratching our heads wondering what's been said that might make him go away. We forget how much we rely on internet access. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here be Dragons

FYI, I am reading Here be Dragons right now, and I am quite enjoying it. A very good book, and it's a shame that more scholars/cirtics haven't treated her other books it would be worth expanding them, just because of the quality of the fiction. The only thing is, she has a tendency to switch between perspectives without warning, which is mildly irritating, but good book and thank you for the recommendation, Sadads (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a good series, but hard to find any sources. I'd forgotten about the shifting perspective - that did annoy me at the beginning, but she does that in all her books and I got used to it. In this series I like the last one the best. Enjoy - you have a bit of reading ahead of you if you're to read the entire series - and then there's a second series she finished last year. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

3rd Opinion at Template talk:Dale Brown

Could I get a third opinion please? Sadads (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm watching it. Give me a moment. There are lots of templates with red links, just need to poke around a bit. That said, don't forget that 3r is a bright line - I've learned that myself on Hemingway a few times. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I solved that one through apology, but thanks, Sadads (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit request

Hi! Do you have time for a little copy edit? There is a plan to present featured lists on the wikipedia main page. For this a little blurb is required to advertise the respective lists. Would be great if you could improve this blurb. Rules are: about 1000 characters (should be more or less ok, I could remove the small statistics at the end of the blurb if necessary) and as far as I understand it should not mention "list". bamse (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bamse - I saw that they were doing this, which I think is a wonderful idea. I won't get to it immediately, but hopefully tonight can start picking at it - the first para needs a little work, I think. I need to have a look at the others too, to see what The Rambling Man wants. Do I edit the actual blurb you linked, or do you have it elsewhere? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to edit the actual blurb (in The Rambling Man's user space). Let me know if you have any questions on content (NT,...). For technical questions concerning blurb stuff The Rambling Man is the man to ask. bamse (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you want quite so much detail regarding the national treasures in the first paragraph, or would you mind if it were trimmed a bit? I think the blurb for Bodley's Librarian is a good example. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In my sandbox is a new blurb at approximately the correct size. Have a look and let me know what you think of the concept - it includes ideas from the entire lead. If you like it, I'll have another go to polish. Also, if this is going on the main page, I'll be swinging through the list at some point to polish the prose - but let's worry about the blurb first. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Reads much more interesting than my poor attempt. Just a bit of nit-picking:

• The first "National Treasure" should be without the " and probably an s should be added.
• There is a slight break in the text at "...calligraphy. Writing was ...". Not sure if that's a problem or if anything could be done about it.
• "From Korea in the 6th century...", might have been 5th century already.
• Do you think it worthwhile (and possible) to stress that the Chinese imports from 2000 years ago were not perceived (by the Japanese) as writing while the later Korean imports were perceived as written texts? bamse (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed it all. I added 'lettering' for the artefacts, though I don't know if that's the correct term. It needed a para break after calligraphy, which is how I'd originally written, but was experimenting with a single para. I've made some punctuation fixes too. It's very very close on size, so I don't think much more can be done, except changing the 'lettering' if that's wrong. Feel free to copy out and swap out at The Rambling Man's subpage whenever you want. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I moved it to The Rambling Man's subpage. bamse (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem. Keep me up to date; if you know when it's scheduled to run I'll tidy a bit. I'm fairly busy these days and mainly editing on weekends, but I do check in. I'm very happy they're doing this and giving credit to some of these nice lists. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Howdy!

Hi Truthkeeper, hope your health is a little better now. I have been dealing with some crazy drama in my personal life, so while I am going to be venturing back to WP a little, I am avoiding Catholic Church at all costs for now. Any more drama and my poor little brain might explode (or I'll turn totally crazy and start carving people up with knives ;))! Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Howdy back at you. I'm better, thankfully, & thanks for asking. I'd unwatched the CC article for months and when I had a look at it recently the lead had shrunk down to nothing. So, after posting that I would be reinstating I waited a week and reinstated. Now it's crazy. I'm not getting into it - I don't think that page can ever get much better than it is at the moment. The clean-up we did in the spring/summer was useful and probably the most improvement we can expect - unless a small and dedicated group of editors takes it into a sandbox and rewrites it completely. But even then it would be torn to shreds when copied into main space. I'm convinced now that Misplaced Pages is not good at these kinds of big topics. Glad you're back and hope the real life drama isn't too stressful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pong

Incoming. Howdy. Ceoil 21:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Howdy to you too. Got it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

National Treasures of Japan (writings: others)

Hi! I split the "writings" list in two: 1, 2 and am getting one closer to FL standards. What is missing is the lead which I am going to rewrite (in a similar short way as this lists's lead) and the statistics section (including map). If you wish you can start copy-editing the subsections under "Treasures" (everything from "Buddhist writings" to "others"). I am not planning to touch those anymore unless required. bamse (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done adding the lead, statistics section, etc. Up to copy-editing the list is ready for FLC. As usual, take your time and let me know if you have any questions/suggestions/comments. Thanks! bamse (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I should have time to start on it this weekend. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Great! bamse (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just looking at it now. Very interesting pieces of writing. Nice work, as usual. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Checked recent edits (thanks!) and everything looks fine. Just one comment concerning : This sentence refers to the previous sentence in particular to "Dharma". Basically the message should be "...Dharma" + "ink trace" = "trace of the enlightened mind". Does this make sense? As for your inline question, it does not matter for me whether it is singular or plural. bamse (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, had to break for a while. Yeah, I know it refers to the previous sentence and may be fine as you had it written, but I might try combining the two sentences as well. I wasn't crazy about the " = "ink trace", but will revert for now and come back to it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I think your version was fine. Just wanted to point out this relationship which possibly could be made more clear (than either of our versions). bamse (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Initially I thought it needed clarification - it's an interesting concept, that the calligraphy is a manifestation of the spiritual state of the mind, but in fact I think the more simply it's stated the better. I'll leave it as is for now and come back to it after working my way through the rest. I am having trouble loading, so I'm focusing only on the simplest issues for now, so I can work on entire sections, and then I'll come back through and work out the few problem sentences. Honestly, I was just thinking how much work you've put into this, and how interesting it is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Honestly I left these "writings" lists for the very last since I thought that they'd be the most boring. Don't seem boring at all anymore after learning about them. bamse (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not at all boring, and amazing that such fragile and beautiful pieces have survived. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Checked, and liked all of your edits. Will go to sleep now (back tomorrow). I moved one sentence in the sutra section since to me it makes more sense at the new position. Feel free to revert if you think it is better in the original place. bamse (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, that's where it should be. I think I had it there, but either changed it back or it got moved in the reversions. I'm taking a break too - want to think about some of the sentences. Will be back at it tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Checked all edits up to now. I like them, also the new sentence after this edit. Would it be possible to somehow mention in the same sentence that the Daihannya and Lotus Sutra were those that were copied/produced most during that time? bamse (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it slightly. Have been through twice and think it's good to go. I haven't checked the text in the tables, but scrolling through noticed a few instances of 'national treasure' vs. 'National Treasure' that should probably be fixed. I'll be around somewhat tonight and tomorrow and then not much at all for the next few weeks, (the reason I wanted to get this finished), so let me know if anything else needs to be fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Read through it once more and it looks perfect! Thanks a lot! Capitalized the remaining NT. I won't have much time in the next few weeks either, so will postpone the FLC a bit. Would be great if you could leave a note on my talk page, when you got some time for fixing language issues in an FLC. Possibly the "books" question will have been resolved by then. Thanks again, great job as usual! bamse (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'll be checking in but won't really have time to edit. Am very busy time-wise from Monday until about the 20th, but I'll let you know when I'm back to active editing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

National Treasure "books"

I have a question on the other writings list. So far I referred to its content as "books". However in the physical sense it contains not only books but also scrolls. So I was wondering if you know a more appropriate word or if you think that "book" is fine. The content of the list is: poetry collections, epics/narratives, histories/chronicles, biographies, encyclopedias, law "books", dictionaries, ... bamse (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about this - I won't be back for a few hours, and I'll give it some thought. Obviously scrolls are not books, but don't know what other title to use. What do the sources say? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources say that the article contains washo (和書) and kanseki (漢籍). I will provide a translation later today. Another thought: in the list there is for instance Book of Han, where "book" is used independent of the medium (scroll/bound book/...) AFAIK. bamse (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation (according to different dictionaries and wikipedia) of kanseki:

1. Chinese books; books written by Chinese people in Chinese style (all kanji); a book written in Chinese
2. a Chinese book, a book (written) in Chinese; 〔general term〕the Chinese classics
3. (wikipedia): kanseki is a term complementary to washo; Chinese books written entirely in kanji; generally includes Buddhist scriptures (sutras); books on Confucianism play a leading role in kanseki; limited to books

bamse (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Translation of washo:

1. Japanese books; also books written in Japanese language; as opposed to western books; book bound in Japanese style
2. Japanese books that are none of: Chinese books/classics (kanseki), Buddhist scriptures/sutras, books from China and western books; books written in Japanese language;

So, these sources call them books (書物). bamse (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll also ask the wikiproject Japan for help with this question. bamse (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the definitions. I think the title is probably fine - certainly when I think of something such as the Tale of the Genji, I think book. But checking with wikiproject Japan is a good idea. I'd thought maybe you could use literature as an alternative title, but not sure all the entries can be categorized as literature. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Will see what the wikiproject says. I was also considering to split the two lists differently, maybe as Buddhist/non-Buddhist or such (would not be 50:50 in that case since there are many more non-Buddhist NT). bamse (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The literal translation of 書物/shomotu is "written things". The ja word includes both books and scrolls. If English does not have an equivalent word, how about to use "books and scrolls"? Oda Mari (talk) 10:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The problem is however how to separate (in words) the content of these two lists: 1, List of National Treasures of Japan (writings: books). Presently I used "books" and "rest/others". Using "books and scrolls" to refer to this list does not really work, since also the other list consists of books and scrolls (plus hanging scrolls). How do you like the idea of splitting the writings into Buddhist/non-Buddhist? That would be an 83 (Buddhist) to 140 (non-Buddhist) split. bamse (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've honestly only glanced briefly at this list but a few ideas off the top of my head. Perhaps the lists should be renamed to remove 'writings' and replace with "books and scrolls" and then do a Buddist/non-Buddhist split. So then you'd have List of National Treasures of Japan (Books and scrolls: Buddhist writings) and List of National Treasures of Japan (Books and scrolls: non-Buddhist writings) or something like that. Of course that might involve some reworking of the texts ... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be an idea. My only issue is that the non-Buddhist list would be longish (140 entries). Text reworking would be minimal and mainly involve some numbers in the lead and statistics sections. Maybe I'll put up something like it in userspace to see what it would look. bamse (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's actually an enormous topic covering thousands of years of Chinese/Japanese literature. Maybe three lists are necessary: Buddhist writings, Classical Literature, and Others. If you did that, I'd suggest putting poetry and classical literature into one list, and then everything else into the list of "Others". Just a thought. I do think 140 entries is too many - I was having trouble loading the table with the 83 entries. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll need some time to think about it. Indeed 140 is a lot, but comparable to this and this list. bamse (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we are saved! According to the book article, books can be scrolls! Unless there are objections, I would therefore stay with the present situation. Thanks for the feedback. bamse (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

No objections, I think that's fine. And we shouldn't have forgotten to have looked that article in the first place! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Indian Camp

The article Indian Camp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Indian Camp for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already replied there. Looked it over when I saw you were reviewing and noted that Hadley wasn't linked or explained. I've fixed it. Thanks, by the way, for reviewing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hemingway Nobel Speech

Hi Truthkeeper88- The audio fragment is a from a well-known (but minimally documented) set of recordings that Hemingway made with a portable wire-recorder in his home. Most of these recordings were apparently done in Cuba, and several show him to be deep into the bottle-- although amusing and informative nonetheless. The ones that have been circulating for the past two decades come from a Caedmon Audio cassette/CD release called "Ernest Hemingway Reads Ernest Hemingway" (ISBN-13: 978-0898459586), and the copyright implies the rights are held by the Hemingway Estate (although truly, they provide almost no substantive information in the notes). I suppose I could add the track number (there of course is no page number)to flesh out the reference. The main point here, which I tried to clarify in my caption note (apparently not successfully) is that although Hemingway was not in Stockholm, this is the speech he prepared, and was read for him by U.S. Ambassador to Sweden John C. Cabot. LATER, apparently in December 1954, according to Caedmon, he recorded the speech at home with the wire-recorder. I added the fragment to the Misplaced Pages page just to give a flavor of Hemingway's speaking voice, which I find always adds another dimension to our understanding of an individual-- I'm thinking of young students who may working on a report, or just in curiosity about such a huge literary figure. Does that answer your concern? Seeker56 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seeker56 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My concern is this: if the estate holds copyright, can we use the fragment? Anything that hasn't been donated to the JFK Library is clearly held by John and Patrick Hemingway (or their heirs), and I don't know enough about copyright re: ogg files. Because this is a featured article, it's been through a image review, and I don't want to add anything that infringes on copyright. If this speech is included in the NobelPrize.org site I'd feel more comfortable using it, but am not all that comfortable using copyrighted material. The Hemingway estate is very protective about their copyrights. Also, we need a secondary source explaining the circumstances of the recording. If you could get that to me, and we can clear up the copyright issue, then I'm not against adding it. Oh, btw if you end your posts with four tildes ~~~~ your sig will appear automatically. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW - am copying this to the Ernest Hemingway talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair-use generally allows 0:30 or less, and this is 0:17. We are very much in the clear here, because we are well within fair-use guidelines, and also the entire file appears all over the Web, including the Nobel Prize site-- without attribution or copyright notice (even on mainstream sites). I think the Caedmon copyright claim is deliberately vague (and therefore weak) because some of the material had been broadcast before, and is likely in the public domain. Copyright concerns are part of my business, in my capacity as a radio producer, and as owner/manager/licensor or more than 1000 copyrighted works, so I have personal experience as a guide. On the sourcing details and corroboration, I will try to find something conclusive. I have a working relationship with Scribners (although they didn't release these recordings) --maybe they can shed light. I will say that if you are so concerned about clearance, and I don't mind that you are!, we might as well put the whole speech up instead of the fragment, once it's all kosher. re: Ernest Hemingway talkpage, I've no doubt there are some Hem-o-philes there who may know more about these recordings that Caedmon or Scribners. Seeker56 (talk) 01:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fine. If we could get the entire speech, that would be great. The JFK library also has sound recordings, and if there, it would be in the public domain. I'll dig around a bit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Dickinson

Hey Truthkeeper, thanks for stepping in and providing your valuable input at Emily Dickinson. I feel like I've been manning this fort by myself for far too long, I'm going stir-crazy. First it's just me amongst the newbies, and then suddenly here are several other knowledgeable editors pitching in! Makes a gal feel not so alone in this world. Did I inadvertently trip the Bat Signal or something? María (habla conmigo) 22:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It was on my watchlist and then was taken off my watchlist and then added again fairly recently. I was wondering if there's news re Dickinson that's bringing in the newbies, or simply students deciding to add what they've been learning. At any rate, happy to help. I'm considering, strongly, reverting the edit about the New Criiticism but I only looked at it quickly. I'm currently knee-deep in The Sun Also Rises - was planning to ping you when I'm done for feedback or even a peer review. Not there yet, though. It's not an easy book to write about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The user who added the New Criticism info is very... adamant, so reverting may only exacerbate. I just added some suggestions/further thoughts to the talk page, with an explicit request for someone to please fix kthnx. I've already been accused several times by this user of ownership, lack of expertise, locking the article, etc., etc. I'm trying to be a little less hands-on. It's hard to do after having watched the same damn article for three years now. Gah. Definitely ping me about Sun; it's one of two Hemingway books I actively enjoy, not including some of his short stories. I could use some levity -- and by that I mean the drinking and fishing, of course. :) María (habla conmigo) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Just finished the drinking section. Ironically the next section to tackle is the criticism section - which is hard to distill and involves a lot of reading. I've also recently expanded Indian Camp, now at GA, and intend to try to have it be the second short story at FA. Have been dipping into The Open Boat quite a bit recently. I'll keep in mind what you've said, but really, an entire section on New Criticism? Maybe I can hack it down a bit. This is the problem with working on these kinds of biographies, they have to be tended - forever. I'll spend some time bringing myself up-to-speed on the talk page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there should be an entire section, either. At all. I agree completely with Moni and you (girl power?), but New Criticism should at least be mentioned -- perhaps with a couple name-checks? No huge blockquotes, they make me nauseous. Thanks again for taking the time. The Open Boat is one of my all time favorites. It's awesome how you seem to be doing with Hemingway what I intended to do with Crane. Go you! If real life stops strangling my free time, I'd love to finish up The Red Badge of Courage. Sigh. One day... María (habla conmigo) 23:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a long break from Hemingway, almost a year, but after the Ezra Pound fiasco decided it was the safest for me. Once the bio and the most important books and short stories are in place, it gets easier with each article. Anyway, I need a break, so after supper will spend some time with Emily. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You rock. Adding the info to other articles is a great compromise, and I hope everyone else thinks so as well. Hopefully the original user will be able to help with pinpointing the particular sources used, but other than that it looks good to me. What a world we live in, in which Hemingway is a welcome respite from Pound! María (habla conmigo) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It was basically good information but in the wrong place and easily used elsewhere. Believe me, Hemingway is a very welcome respite from Pound. Although the talkpage has archived over at Pound, it shows a little of the ... well ... problems, if you should be interested. I'll keep an eye on Emily - it's well done and no reason to let it degrade. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Its Lassie Time! and Horror comics

Correction and Comment. ItsLassieTime was NOT banned for plagiarism. She was banned for socking. Three years ago, ITL was first blocked, then blocked indefinitly, then banned permanently for socking. ITL is now a ban evader writing GA articles for Misplaced Pages. In November 2010, she had an article passed at FA as "Susanne" something or other. She then submitted another article for FA review and it was discovered then that she was a sock. She was banned again as a sock/ban evader -- not as a plagiarist. Tenebrae is now rewriting one of her early articles "Horror comics in the United State, 1946-1954". First, Tenebrae should gather the sources ITL used to build the article and methodically go through the article revising passages that are too closely paraphrased from the original source. Essentially, the job is to put some distance between the article passage and the cited source. This is a very simple process. He is not doing this. Instead, he is writing a new article using his own sources. Secondly, he needs to record the changes he makes on this article at the appropriate listing at WP:CCI to prevent other editors from picking up the article for revision and to alert those who are managing this list that work is being done on this article. Thirdly, he is using very questionable sources. The business about the Japanese scrolls is cited to two Japanese museums. Neither of these museums posit any connection between the ghost scrolls and the western horror comic book. None whatsoever. One could just as easily say comic books are descendants of Greek vase paintings depicting gorgons and sphinxes and cite it to me. The passage in the article is actually a "fringe theory" of Stephen Bissette, a cartoonist whose only education is a two year cartooning course at a vocational school in New York City. Misplaced Pages does not publish fringe theories. Bissette is not a scholar, although he presents himself as one. His bio article her reads like a personal resume filled with peacock words. He probably submitted it himself. Tenebrae cites him and his fringe theory to some weird sort of promotional blurb that offers a movie of Bissette "lecturing" on horror comics. There's some sort of fee involved. What ever this business is, it is not a reliable, scholarly source. And the sad fact is this entire article could be sourced to reliable, scholarly sources from academic presses rather than these unscholarly, "fanboy" type things that are out of print and difficult to locate. I hope some others will get on his case about this. DoverWheels (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)