Hello! I see you have tagged yourelf with a {{la-4}} template. Would you like to help us by translating into latin any of the official polices or help pages of Wikipedia? — Argentino ( talk/ cont.) 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Rather impressive amount of additional info to Sidney Reilly - Skysmith 06:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Flask - I love the Reilly cartoon you have posted. I would love to know where you got the scan of the Reilly cartoon from the Evening Standard. If you know can you please email me on sam.mortimore@pioneertv.com many thanks Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.253.130 ( talk) 12:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that's a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem. Good working with you, sir. DS 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding and updating this article. Be cautious about anything that sounds like hype. I got a lot of pushback when I first wrote the article and even some of their appearances were deleted. IAC, good job.-- Toploftical ( talk) 13:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Flask, thank you for taking the time to write me and compliment my work in establishing and composing the page on Luke the Dog. Like you, no doubt, I find it gratifying bringing obscure or forgotten subjects to life through Wikipedia. It's even more gratifying, though, to get kind feedback from a colleague. —Strudjum
![]() |
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
Barnstars seem to have become old fashioned but I still like them and I think you deserve one. Thanks for creating new plot summary for The Great Gatsby article to eliminate the discovered copyright issue. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Million Award |
For your contributions to bring The Great Gatsby (estimated annual readership: 1,800,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! ImaginesTigers ( talk) 23:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Flask, thank you for your tireless work on The Great Gatsby. I disappeared shortly after GA Nomination as I had some unforeseen personal events to attend to. I apologize for cutting and running on you. At any rate, I can now offer time and energy toward tuning the page up to FA status if you are up to it at some point. I understand if you need a breather after so much work, though. If you'd like me to handle FA work and nomination, I can also do that, as I owe you a few. Let me know what you think and we/I can get started on it whenever. Thank you again for doing such important work! -- Hobomok ( talk) 17:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article The Great Gatsby has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the coming FA.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 15:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Hobomok:
Flask, thank you for bringing Gatsby to FAC and for pinging to alert me.
I have to admit I am not nearly enough up to speed on principles and best practices there. (The Cather nomination was withdrawn since it required too much repair - much more than I expected, so clearly I am not in a place to offer guidance with the level of competence needed.) So any support I would declare may be incongruent with our shared mission: Making the encyclopedia as best as it can be, which you have done, according to certain editorial decisions, which I simply do not have enough understanding of. But know that in my heart of hearts, the article has been transformed into a phenomenal one with your work, and perhaps one of the best we have to offer. Previously, I directed people looking to understand the mission of Wikipedia as not only providing information, but doing so well and showcasing incredible prose and narrative, toward the Phineas Gage article. That one will always stick with me— maybe I love em-dashes too much—but it is time to add another entry to what will, I hope, become a list of fantastic articles.
If you can indulge me, I wonder about two things.
First is the decision to cite Fitzgerald himself in the first paragraph of the section regarding historical context, since even though I certainly have no issue with it, I would not do it myself. Is the idea to get at not only the historical scene for the book, but to get his understanding of the period? That would make a lot of sense, and it works well; but if that's not what you're going for, what did you have in mind?
And second, this is trivial, but what made you decide to use dashes when repeating authors in the bibliography? I know it's fairly standard in print media, but it requires a certain level of intention and effort when replicating it on Wikipedia.
Thanks, and best of luck (with my support all but official on the FAC page), Urve ( talk) 20:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Scott Fitzgerald as a baby award |
You've been doing great work on F. Scott Fitzgerald and I wanted to thank you. That was my first attempt at a biography and I must admit I did a bit of a hackjob. Glad to see you're fixing my mess. Cheers. :) ~ HAL 333 00:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC) |
Hello! Apologies in advance for this random message. Thank you for the work you have put into the article for The Great Gatsby. It is honestly one of the most influential books in my life and was (and still continues to be) one of the main reasons why I want to be a writer. That is so cliché I know. Apologies for not helping with your FAC. I am not a particularly good reviewer (although I still try my best). Besides, your nomination has already received a good deal of attention from far more experienced editors than myself. I always enjoy seeing literature articles in the FAC space as it brings back happy memories from the classes I took for degree in English literature. Anyway, apologies for my rambling. I just wanted to thank you for your work on here! Aoba47 ( talk) 00:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Featured Article Medal | |
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Million Award |
For your contributions to bring The Great Gatsby (estimated annual readership: 1,700,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — ImaginesTigers ( talk∙ contribs) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC) |
Congratulations on a huge promotion, Flask. Diligent and terrific work—you're a tremendous asset to the site. — ImaginesTigers ( talk∙ contribs) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article F. Scott Fitzgerald has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the FA if you decide to move forward.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 12:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
A bit belated, but thank you for fixing up and expanding the article I started on Cleon Throckmorton. To be honest, I mostly started writing the article because he had an unusual name that was pretty easy to Google, but he turned out to be a really interesting person. And now his article actually looks scholarly! Thanks! Brianyoumans ( talk) 15:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
| Hello, Flask. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Jean Ross at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks for this one, Flask. I tend to agree with the criticisms, and I’m sure an FA review would be useful. I just hope someone finds the time to go through the new source material. Valetude ( talk) 09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm new to Wikipedia and I have been working on my first article, Alabama literature. In it, I discuss some representations of Zelda Fitzgerald in contemporary literature, and I saw that you had edited her page recently and that you clearly love The Great Gatsby a lot (so do I! My copy is extremely worn). I was wondering if you would take a look at my article and give me any advice that you have? Thank you! CatVallejo ( talk) 09:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Good afternoon to you, from London, England.
I am an occasional editor who originally subscribed to Wikipedia about twenty years ago, and every now and then I try to dig out the truth in our world of fairy stories, though it's an uphill struggle with the player piano, which is my life's work, and I sometimes wonder whether it would be better just to let ignorance take its course. I have been checking up on the VIPs who were supposed to have been at Paul Whiteman's Aeolian Hall concert, and I would guess that most of them weren't there at all. Probably Paul Whiteman knowingly lied about them, at a time when it would not have been easy to disprove him, in order to talk up the concert, and to guarantee himself a series of fat paychecks over the following decades.
Rachmaninoff was the first one who set me thinking, because he was demonstrably in Kansas City on the same day. Since then I have found that Sousa was in Pensacola FL, Kreisler was in Birmingham AL, Heifetz was at the University of Champagne-Urbana IL, Stokowski was in Washington DC, Mary Garden was in Cleveland OH, and John McCormack was on his way between Waco TX and Los Angeles CA. And Stravinsky (who probably wasn't even in the list of patrons), was at home in Biarritz, France, and he didn't even travel to the USA until January 1925. As you can imagine, I'm downloading corroborative concert advertisements and reviews for all of these innocenti, and I'm working on the others who were named by Whiteman or his press agency.
The question is, what do I do with this knowledge, and if I do decide to re-edit the Wikipedia page, how do I go about it without my edits being repeatedly taken down? People need their demi-gods in our increasingly dark world, and I don't particularly want to depress Gershwin fans. But, on the other hand, both the Wikipedia article and the community of Gershwin musicologists have got it very wrong, and in many cases over several decades, and my mother always taught me to speak the truth.
There is no point in my writing to established Gershwin scholars, because they will have their own reputations to protect. But you left a sensible comment after I first flagged Rachmaninoff, so you seem like someone who might have some experienced advice to give. I'd be really grateful for your comments.
Best wishes,
Rex Lawson Pianola ( talk) 12:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear Flask, Yesterday I discovered your article on my father Andrew Turnbull. And was enormously grateful. I felt it should be done, but didn't feel I should be the one to do it. I took the liberty of making a few small changes/cuts where facts had been misunderstood (e.g. the Trinity College where AWT was briefly a visiting professor is in Hartford, CT). If need be, I can send you a scan of the article on AWT from The Cyclopedia of American Biography. Thank you so much again. With all good wishes, Joanne Turnbull (Zorog is my husband) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorog ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Flask, I am a Fitzgerald fan who has recently finished reading his five novels. While looking at the articles for these novels (namely This Side of Paradise, The Beautiful and Damned, and Tender is the Night), I noticed that they are quality articles of a decent length, containing many reliable citations. I would be interested to know whether you, as a key Fitzgerald-related editor, would consider them eligible for promotion to good article status? The Great Gatsby is a featured article, so perhaps his other novels could, one day, be too? Kind regards, old sport. Lotsw73 ( talk) 11:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I see you have tagged yourelf with a {{la-4}} template. Would you like to help us by translating into latin any of the official polices or help pages of Wikipedia? — Argentino ( talk/ cont.) 20:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Rather impressive amount of additional info to Sidney Reilly - Skysmith 06:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Flask - I love the Reilly cartoon you have posted. I would love to know where you got the scan of the Reilly cartoon from the Evening Standard. If you know can you please email me on sam.mortimore@pioneertv.com many thanks Sam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.253.130 ( talk) 12:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, that's a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem. Good working with you, sir. DS 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for expanding and updating this article. Be cautious about anything that sounds like hype. I got a lot of pushback when I first wrote the article and even some of their appearances were deleted. IAC, good job.-- Toploftical ( talk) 13:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Flask, thank you for taking the time to write me and compliment my work in establishing and composing the page on Luke the Dog. Like you, no doubt, I find it gratifying bringing obscure or forgotten subjects to life through Wikipedia. It's even more gratifying, though, to get kind feedback from a colleague. —Strudjum
![]() |
The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar | |
Barnstars seem to have become old fashioned but I still like them and I think you deserve one. Thanks for creating new plot summary for The Great Gatsby article to eliminate the discovered copyright issue. Jason Quinn ( talk) 14:23, 11 December 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Million Award |
For your contributions to bring The Great Gatsby (estimated annual readership: 1,800,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! ImaginesTigers ( talk) 23:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hi Flask, thank you for your tireless work on The Great Gatsby. I disappeared shortly after GA Nomination as I had some unforeseen personal events to attend to. I apologize for cutting and running on you. At any rate, I can now offer time and energy toward tuning the page up to FA status if you are up to it at some point. I understand if you need a breather after so much work, though. If you'd like me to handle FA work and nomination, I can also do that, as I owe you a few. Let me know what you think and we/I can get started on it whenever. Thank you again for doing such important work! -- Hobomok ( talk) 17:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article The Great Gatsby has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the coming FA.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 15:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Hobomok:
Flask, thank you for bringing Gatsby to FAC and for pinging to alert me.
I have to admit I am not nearly enough up to speed on principles and best practices there. (The Cather nomination was withdrawn since it required too much repair - much more than I expected, so clearly I am not in a place to offer guidance with the level of competence needed.) So any support I would declare may be incongruent with our shared mission: Making the encyclopedia as best as it can be, which you have done, according to certain editorial decisions, which I simply do not have enough understanding of. But know that in my heart of hearts, the article has been transformed into a phenomenal one with your work, and perhaps one of the best we have to offer. Previously, I directed people looking to understand the mission of Wikipedia as not only providing information, but doing so well and showcasing incredible prose and narrative, toward the Phineas Gage article. That one will always stick with me— maybe I love em-dashes too much—but it is time to add another entry to what will, I hope, become a list of fantastic articles.
If you can indulge me, I wonder about two things.
First is the decision to cite Fitzgerald himself in the first paragraph of the section regarding historical context, since even though I certainly have no issue with it, I would not do it myself. Is the idea to get at not only the historical scene for the book, but to get his understanding of the period? That would make a lot of sense, and it works well; but if that's not what you're going for, what did you have in mind?
And second, this is trivial, but what made you decide to use dashes when repeating authors in the bibliography? I know it's fairly standard in print media, but it requires a certain level of intention and effort when replicating it on Wikipedia.
Thanks, and best of luck (with my support all but official on the FAC page), Urve ( talk) 20:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Scott Fitzgerald as a baby award |
You've been doing great work on F. Scott Fitzgerald and I wanted to thank you. That was my first attempt at a biography and I must admit I did a bit of a hackjob. Glad to see you're fixing my mess. Cheers. :) ~ HAL 333 00:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC) |
Hello! Apologies in advance for this random message. Thank you for the work you have put into the article for The Great Gatsby. It is honestly one of the most influential books in my life and was (and still continues to be) one of the main reasons why I want to be a writer. That is so cliché I know. Apologies for not helping with your FAC. I am not a particularly good reviewer (although I still try my best). Besides, your nomination has already received a good deal of attention from far more experienced editors than myself. I always enjoy seeing literature articles in the FAC space as it brings back happy memories from the classes I took for degree in English literature. Anyway, apologies for my rambling. I just wanted to thank you for your work on here! Aoba47 ( talk) 00:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Featured Article Medal | |
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild ( talk) 13:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Million Award |
For your contributions to bring The Great Gatsby (estimated annual readership: 1,700,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — ImaginesTigers ( talk∙ contribs) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC) |
Congratulations on a huge promotion, Flask. Diligent and terrific work—you're a tremendous asset to the site. — ImaginesTigers ( talk∙ contribs) 19:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article F. Scott Fitzgerald has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Best of luck with the FA if you decide to move forward.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist ( talk) 12:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
A bit belated, but thank you for fixing up and expanding the article I started on Cleon Throckmorton. To be honest, I mostly started writing the article because he had an unusual name that was pretty easy to Google, but he turned out to be a really interesting person. And now his article actually looks scholarly! Thanks! Brianyoumans ( talk) 15:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
| Hello, Flask. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Jean Ross at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Cheers, Baffle☿gab 06:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks for this one, Flask. I tend to agree with the criticisms, and I’m sure an FA review would be useful. I just hope someone finds the time to go through the new source material. Valetude ( talk) 09:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there! I'm new to Wikipedia and I have been working on my first article, Alabama literature. In it, I discuss some representations of Zelda Fitzgerald in contemporary literature, and I saw that you had edited her page recently and that you clearly love The Great Gatsby a lot (so do I! My copy is extremely worn). I was wondering if you would take a look at my article and give me any advice that you have? Thank you! CatVallejo ( talk) 09:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Good afternoon to you, from London, England.
I am an occasional editor who originally subscribed to Wikipedia about twenty years ago, and every now and then I try to dig out the truth in our world of fairy stories, though it's an uphill struggle with the player piano, which is my life's work, and I sometimes wonder whether it would be better just to let ignorance take its course. I have been checking up on the VIPs who were supposed to have been at Paul Whiteman's Aeolian Hall concert, and I would guess that most of them weren't there at all. Probably Paul Whiteman knowingly lied about them, at a time when it would not have been easy to disprove him, in order to talk up the concert, and to guarantee himself a series of fat paychecks over the following decades.
Rachmaninoff was the first one who set me thinking, because he was demonstrably in Kansas City on the same day. Since then I have found that Sousa was in Pensacola FL, Kreisler was in Birmingham AL, Heifetz was at the University of Champagne-Urbana IL, Stokowski was in Washington DC, Mary Garden was in Cleveland OH, and John McCormack was on his way between Waco TX and Los Angeles CA. And Stravinsky (who probably wasn't even in the list of patrons), was at home in Biarritz, France, and he didn't even travel to the USA until January 1925. As you can imagine, I'm downloading corroborative concert advertisements and reviews for all of these innocenti, and I'm working on the others who were named by Whiteman or his press agency.
The question is, what do I do with this knowledge, and if I do decide to re-edit the Wikipedia page, how do I go about it without my edits being repeatedly taken down? People need their demi-gods in our increasingly dark world, and I don't particularly want to depress Gershwin fans. But, on the other hand, both the Wikipedia article and the community of Gershwin musicologists have got it very wrong, and in many cases over several decades, and my mother always taught me to speak the truth.
There is no point in my writing to established Gershwin scholars, because they will have their own reputations to protect. But you left a sensible comment after I first flagged Rachmaninoff, so you seem like someone who might have some experienced advice to give. I'd be really grateful for your comments.
Best wishes,
Rex Lawson Pianola ( talk) 12:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Dear Flask, Yesterday I discovered your article on my father Andrew Turnbull. And was enormously grateful. I felt it should be done, but didn't feel I should be the one to do it. I took the liberty of making a few small changes/cuts where facts had been misunderstood (e.g. the Trinity College where AWT was briefly a visiting professor is in Hartford, CT). If need be, I can send you a scan of the article on AWT from The Cyclopedia of American Biography. Thank you so much again. With all good wishes, Joanne Turnbull (Zorog is my husband) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorog ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Flask, I am a Fitzgerald fan who has recently finished reading his five novels. While looking at the articles for these novels (namely This Side of Paradise, The Beautiful and Damned, and Tender is the Night), I noticed that they are quality articles of a decent length, containing many reliable citations. I would be interested to know whether you, as a key Fitzgerald-related editor, would consider them eligible for promotion to good article status? The Great Gatsby is a featured article, so perhaps his other novels could, one day, be too? Kind regards, old sport. Lotsw73 ( talk) 11:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)