This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
At first glance I think the article needs to be divided into another separate article or articles - et.al. Complete works by Ernest Hemingway, and/or Novels by Ernest Hemingway etc. that would link to the main biography as reflected in the template and with links to the books. You can see examples of what I mean at Vincent van Gogh, William Blake and El Greco, 3 great articles that have links to related articles about the aspects of the artists life and works. Another terrific editor to consult with is User:TonyTheTiger. You are doing an excellent job by the way... Modernist ( talk) 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Try WP:PR.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I know you are busy right now. Just not to forget I put this note here. List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) is complete but (as usual) the lead section needs a bit of smoothing. Thanks and take your time. It is not urgent at all. bamse ( talk) 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Same thing for List of National Treasures of Japan (residences). bamse ( talk) 11:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for copy-editing the shrines list. It is in the queue for WP:FLC, but has to wait since not more than one nomination per user is encouraged. If you feel like it, besides List of National Treasures of Japan (residences) also List of National Treasures of Japan (castles) is ready to be copy-edited for FLC. Since nominations are slow, there is no need to rush with either. I am now starting to improve the main National Treasures of Japan article, which will take some time. Hoping to get it up to GA status one day. bamse ( talk) 12:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks, I'll have a look. Still troubleshooting the sandbox. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, TK! I haven't been around much and, when I am, I'm usually only here briefly. But I just wanted to drop by and say, "Nice job!" for all your recent work on the Harlan Hanson article, especially your extensive work back in October. The article looks great. Regards, • Cinch Bug • 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Very glad to see that you are already working on the residences list. Thank you. Just two comments:
Hey Truthkeeper88 nice work with The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie and I will add it to FAC again, but can you copyedit the new text (about Coney Island where the "Crazy Car" music video was shot) here. I paraphrased everything. Thanx! ATC . Talk 02:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what the problem is. I see it at both WP:PR and wp:pr/d when I search for Hemingway with my browser. You made need to WP:BYC. Peer reviews are listed by a bot, so it takes them up to an hour to appear after being made, but that time has long since passed. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No no no, please don't bail out, you have been doing a great job - picking up things i can't believe i missed. I just tidied a couple of points, but if you are free to look through more of the article, everyone would be very grateful. Thanks for your work. hamiltonstone ( talk) 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88! Hope you are having a great holiday. The FLC of List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) failed with one "support" and no "oppose" due to a lack of reviews. I renominated it and asked the wikiprojects Japan and Visual Arts for help with reviews. The new comments will appear here. bamse ( talk) 09:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) got featured! Thanks for the good copy-editing work. I noticed that you put the intro of National Treasures of Japan to the Japanese art sandbox. Shall I have a look over it? bamse ( talk) 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I added a bit more to lead expanding "also featuring", by explaining what character name they had. Can you copyedit it? Did I space the paragraphs bad? Thanx! ATC . Talk 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on the article on the Greenlandic language, and it could use some copyediting by a native English speaker, so if you have the time I'd appreciate you dropping by. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry about the revert last night to your good faith edit. It was late and I intended to fix today. Anyway, Mellow has the hotel name as Ambos only, which I though strange, but Meyers has the full name so that's fine. In fact Hemingway only spent a month in the hotel, and as was his habit, he worked on the manuscript in various places. He spent a fair amount of time in Sun Valley, at the Sun Valley Lodge finishing the rough draft. In my view, this is all too much info for the biography article, but would be very good in the separate article about the novel. I submitted the article for peer review a few days ago, and am awaiting comments as far as splitting up the sections. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Noble Prize. Please read Nobel Prize in Literature. Noble prizes are awarded for a body of work. Specific works may be cited as particularly noteworthy, but Noble Prizes are not awarded for individual works. The cite you gave me actually confirms what I'm saying. EeepEeep ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
|
The Multiple Barnstar | |||||||
For the astonishingly manic, helpful copyediting push you did during the Fourth Battle of the International Space Station, in a subject you're not familiar with - you stepped in at just the right moment there! :-) Many, many thanks! Colds7ream ( talk) 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
Wow! A double barnstar! Thanks Colds7ream!! Congratulations! I enjoyed working on the article. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 21:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I replied at YellowMonkey's talk page. ATC . Talk 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the information template, adding better source links, but you did not add a copyright tag to the image, just claiming it as Public Domain, but I am not sure about that. Please check deeper for its current status and add the appropriate tag if it really is a PD image. Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I was having a look over the edits you made on the history section and am very happy with them. Just one minor question: did you remove "westernization" from the sentence "The rise of industrialization was another significant influence during the restoration with a negative impact on the cultural heritage in Japan" in "History->Background" on purpose or accidentally? I know that westernization is mentioned later (in "1871 Plan for the Preservation of Ancient Artifacts"), but I think it is an important aspect and should be mentioned already in "Background". Until the Bakumatsu, Japan was basically closed to foreign influences, so the opening to the west must have had a big influence on society (and culture). bamse ( talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Two quick comments on recent copy-edits (rest is very fine):
I read through the article once more (all except the intro) and fixed some typos and one real error which was due to me (in "Age of National Treasures"). bamse ( talk) 22:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88! I'm just in the course of a GAR for Greenlandic language. I have just enumerated a few points at Talk:Greenlandic language/GA1 that User:Maunus as the nominator of the article will address. But after that, the article could do with some good copyediting. Neither Maunus nor me are native speakers of English. After that and coping with a few additional matters, I'm quite confident that the article will qualify for GA. G Purevdorj ( talk) 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for the work you are doing on Ernest Hemingway. Such an important writer deserves a truly wonderful article and I look forward to the many improvements you will bring to the article. Awadewit ( talk) 02:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you Awadewit! The timing couldn't have been better: I was on the verge of giving up....
Truthkeeper88 (
talk)
13:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, noticed your name on the GOCE participants list, would you like to copy-edit " The Ex-Girlfriend", as I think it is (finally) ready for FAC after one more copy-edit. Thank you very much.-- Music 26/ 11 16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
I was in the process of writing you a message to ask to check the Cuba section but didn't want to be presumptious. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your additions! I am very ready to be done with this article, but the improvement is noticeable. When I have time, later in the week, will tackle the writing style section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It's always hard to know what to put in leave out in these things. I'm a little sorry to see some of the things go-- H's experience collecting body parts after the ammo manufacturing plant explosian obviously affected him deeply (see A Natural History of Death), and his description of the Greeks breaking the front legs of their pack animals and then leaving them to drown in shallow water at Smyrna almost deserves to be quoted. A scene that calls for a Goya indeed! He used that scene in two places. One notices all kinds of stylistic quirks, and I don't know how many have been properly "noticed" by critics. One thing is that H. doesn't always pay attention to proper paragraph breaking, and the effect is sometimes a little like whiplash, as he suddently changes course in the middle of a paragraph and you come out the other side with a totally different direction. His sentences are models of journalism, but his paragraphs not. I don't think anybody has really said this. I think he did some of it deliberately.
Another is that Hemingway's people always show their character on their faces. His evil people are almost always ugly (at least the men are). The sexually predatory Wilson and the officer in A Simple Enquiry are both badly and chronically sunburned. What does this mean? Can't be coincidence. SBHarris 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sbharris" Hidden categories: Noindexed pages
Hi, TK! As I'm a fan of Supernatural, I have a bunch of Supernatural-related articles on my watchlist and noted that you just edited one of them. Do you watch the show, too? In any event, nice to see you. Regards, • Cinch Bug • 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Though all of what follows is original thought (forbidden on WP) I thought you'd be amused that I finally realized why Wilson has the red face. It's very old-style humour. As in four humours.
When H. talks about a fearful experience faced properly "cleaning out the liver" it's clear he's interested in talking about the humoural theories of character. In this one, the lilly-livered persons who have excessive yellow bile, have it replaced by good red blood. That happens to Macomber.
And Wilson? He's the personification of the sanginary warlike bloody-minded personality. His red complexion shows he is Mars, god of war and manly courage. And red is the color of lust. Wilson is fearless and knows how to dominate, control and bend the world to his will. As a Roman gladiator, he respects ONLY courage. He respects the lion for continuing to crawl with its head half blown off (his praise of the lion is not for its size). He loses all respect for Wilson after the lion episode, and is only piqued when Wilson frankly admits his own bolting like a rabbit. The first step in controlling his own fear being to acknowlege it openly-- clearly a step up from Macomber's earlier worry about if Wilson will talk about it-- which disgusts Wilson as another form of cowardice. Finally, he begins to like Macomber when the latter shoots the buffalo and finally faces down his wife, easily acknowledging his change of heart and new outlook as a fact.
Component-wise, there isn't much else TO Wilson, which is why, without any evidence of character-change, he's not the main character. He has the cannon .505 to symbolize his overgrown manhood, and he says that loss of fear and what replaces it is the "main thing a man has." It's certainly the main thing Wilson has; it's very nearly the ONLY thing Wilson has. Like George Armstrong Custer, Wilson has physical courage and the power to dominate and kill anything, but no other admirable qualities. Margot is said in the story to have recognized Wilson's "main talent," and clearly, this is it. It does not change. His character is shallow. H says twice that his eyes are flat, and they reflect the depth of Wilson's soul. He may switch from telegraphic English to almost elegant lawyer-ese at the end, but it's again just another of his ways to refuse to be dominated, and to win. In this case, win out over Margot, who is not going to tell the story of his chasing the buffalo, with this over her head. Wilson is angry, but not deeply; deep moral questions don't trouble him. He can self-justify any action so long as it doesn't get in the way of his chief value, which is facing danger and/or challenge and beating it down or breaking it down, like a lion with a bullet though the shoulders, or a woman who needs to learn to use the word "please."
Macomber is unappreciated, even by Wilson. We see him transcend himself (and his many other qualities which neither his wife nor his guide see, or have any use for) to finally win out over the rather natural first reaction to a wounded lion. Even the brave man fears a lion three times, as H says. Macomber needs time. As a far more complete man than Wilson at the end (his face is "shining"), of course the transcended Macomber doesn't and can't last long in the real world, but must be sacrificed by the bitch-goddess, as on the mythic alter or cross of all perfect things destroyed by the fearful who sense their power threatened. And Margot clearly is the Sanhedrin. H's critics have far more sympathy for her than H. does-- it's hard to see how they can be so blind to H's meaning. S B H arris 11:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the "6.5 Mannlicher" is not much of a weapon for big game, though if the 6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schönauer is meant, it was used on lions on safari (nobody would do that today). Hemingway and Percival hunted with this weapon, but the wiki says he called it a ".256 Mannlicher". Not in this story. When he calls it a 6.5 Mannlicher, one almost wonders if Hemingway wasn't referring to the shorter cased 6.5 x 52 Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, which is also known as the 6.5 Italian, and which H. would have been very familiar with, from his time in Italy in WW I. The Carcano rifle that fires that round is very famous as Oswald's surplus Italian 1940 Carcano rifle, which he used to hit JKF just about where Margo hits Francis. Coincidence, of course, unless Oswald read a lot of Hemingway before he ordered the rifle second-hand from Klein's. Which is not impossible. Anyway, a good rifle for shooting people, but not buffalo. A hole in the plot is how and where Margo ever learns to use it, given her stated distaste for hunting. Perhaps on tin cans.
P.S. have you tried fish oil loading for migraines? No side effects, but 5 to 10 grams a day helps a lot of people, though it takes some weeks to work fully. S B H arris 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnsensu! You deserve it at least as much as me. As you probably noticed List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) just got featured, so I nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (castles). Review comments will turn up here. I also generated an intro for the List of National Treasures of Japan (temples), but it needs to be compressed quite a bit. I'll let you know when I am done with it and hand it over to you to make it perfect (unless you've had enough of national treasuers). bamse ( talk) 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Quick question. WFCforlife asked to have the short table in the statistics section of the castle list converted to prose. How about this: The eight national treasures are distributed over four castles as follows: Himeji Castle has five castle national treasures, Hikone Castle, Inuyama Castle and Matsumoto Castle each have one national treasure. [nb 1] [nb 2] bamse ( talk) 13:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I moved the intro to List of National Treasures of Japan (temples) and it is rather longish even though I shortened it a bit. Honestly, I don't really know how and where to shorten it further (maybe I am too involved with the subject). Maybe the early history (most of 2nd paragraph could be removed, since most of the temples mentioned in the text are not a national treasure. Or maybe the detailed description of the various styles could be removed, or... Do you have a suggestion, where to cut? bamse ( talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to pick my brain regarding Ernest Hemingway - I'll offer you all the advice I can. You might also look at Emily Dickinson, William Shakespeare, Stephen Crane, and Samuel Johnson. These are all good FAs on authors. Awadewit ( talk) 22:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I like what you've done with the place! You are quite the busy bee. Nice job. I like the larger image for the hexagon. Let me know if you would like for me to help out. I may have some free time in the upcoming weeks. Regards La mome ( talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up, I've started another thread at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ObserverNY. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I had a look over your recent changes in the sandbox. Good choice cutting what you cut. 1st and 2nd paragraph are fine.
That's it for now. Keep up the good work! bamse ( talk) 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
...I think my talk page ought to be off-limits to new editors. Let them come to their own conclusions. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! That was lovely to see! Awadewit ( talk) 00:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I willl take a look at the article later when I have a little more time. As for the references you asked about, they don't have to be online. Online references are preferred because they are usually easier to verify, but offline resources are perfectly acceptable provided that in theory someone could find the source in a library etc and verify what is says. To that end there is the {{ Cite journal}} template for use in such cases. Links to Amazon as a source for notability are generally frowned upon because they could be seen as promoting the sale of the book. Hope this helps. – ukexpat ( talk) 17:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I nominated the image for deletion as replaceable. Regards Hekerui ( talk) 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 00:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again with this article. As suggested in the GA-review, I am adding a little text to the short sections in National_Treasures_of_Japan#Categories_of_National_Treasures in order to reduce empty space. Could you have a look over it. So far it concerns only National_Treasures_of_Japan#Miscellaneous_structures and National_Treasures_of_Japan#Historical_materials but I am planning to add to the castles section as well. bamse ( talk) 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This change has messed up the page. Tried to revert it but it's more complicated than that
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=A_Farewell_to_Arms&diff=next&oldid=345243795 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.117.233 ( talk) 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The castle list got featured, so I nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (residences). Thanks. I guess you already know where to find the nomination page ;-) bamse ( talk) 10:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, how are you? Could you take a look at Quicksilver (novel). Though I am not quite done with the plot summary, the article is almost complete and I have been working on it for a while. Do you have any thoughts on it? Thanks for your help and I just checked out True at First Light! Sadads ( talk) 18:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Those issues are not to bad and a GA review does not have to be as precise as say a FA review. At this point it appears very good and should be reviewed for feedback at the very least, to see if there is anything we have missed. Sadads ( talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: For future readers, I was in no way offended by his language, actually we do other collaborative stuff as well. Sadads ( talk) 22:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Calmer Waters 06:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Or just remove the words. Things like "Once again Penman places the characters against a tightly woven rich tapestry of medieval life, personal conflict, and dramatic characters" are completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and the wording leads me to think (apologies if I'm incorrect in the assertion) that they're taken straight from the journal article. Ironholds ( talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- In Penman's final volume of her trilogy based on the lives of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine (When Christ and His Saints Slept; Time and Chance), the best-selling author concludes the tumultuous love story between these two strong-willed, brilliant rulers. As the novel opens, their four sons are beginning to chafe under the heavy hand of their father, who has crowned the eldest, Hal, as a coregent but gives him little authority or power. Egged on by their mother, the young king and his brothers mount a decade-long crusade of rebellion and treachery against their father and each other as they vie for land, money, and power. The empathetic reader can't help but be both horrified by the machinations of this grievously dysfunctional family and filled with pity for the pain they inflict upon one another. Penman does a remarkable job of depicting passionate, dramatic characters and the perilous times in which they live. For those who like their historical fiction as complex and tightly woven as a medieval tapestry, this book cannot fail to please. Highly recommended. [See Prepub Alert, LJ 6/1/08.] [1]
You scared me for a moment. I thought you were Truthseeker666(recently indef'd) do to the similarity of names. However, given your polite attitude present here on this talk page, I do not think that is the case. Happy editing.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 09:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
This is for your cogent and helpful reviews of 1956 Winter Olympics as it navigated through FAC and 1948 Winter Olympics as it passed GAC. There are precious few editors willing to review the work of others, thanks for your contributions. H1nkles citius altius fortius 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
Gatoclass 03:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I have finally gotten around to reviewing this! Apologies for the delay. Awadewit ( talk) 17:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm so happy you're planning to read some of these books, too!!! After seeing your comments on Diarmaid McCulloch's History of Christianity I've ordered the book. I'm also reading Bokenkotter; Nancy respects his opinion very much, so it will be good for others of us to have read the book and see if her interpretations and choice of what material to use match with ours. I've also read Duffy's Saints and Sinners: A History of the Papacy through the 11th century. I'm planning right now to concentrate on the pre-1000 pieces of the history for now and then move on to other pieces of the history. We can either split the time difference or work together on the earlier parts. If you'd like, I can put all my notes in a sandbox for you to access (in case you don't want to read Duffy). I also started a section at the top of the article talk page for sources that I think need to be read. That may be a good place for both of us to list sources that we are planning to read for the history section as well. I'm becoming more and more optimistic that we might actually get a good article out of this mess. Karanacs ( talk) 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! A while ago you mentioned that you'd be interested to bring Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos up to FA. Are you still interested? I contacted User:Johnbod who's been active on Jesuit reduction articles recently and he promised to help. Unfortunately I only have little time at the moment but am sure that sooner or later we can make it a FA. bamse ( talk) 20:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you already started. Concerning this edit it might be better to swap the order back because both, Moxos and Chiquitania are "northeast of the cordillera". All other edits looked fine as for content (noticed a sentence: "acceptance... was accepted" which should be rephrased. bamse ( talk) 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I replaced one map which created problems in the review. Also went through the failed candidacy and checked for outstanding issues which are collected here. Feel free to edit that page. bamse ( talk) 18:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper! Johnbod and me think that the article needs a little bit shuffling around (moving material to Jesuit reductions and possibly adding some more info). In order not to double work, it is maybe a good idea to pause copy-editing. What do you think? bamse ( talk) 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem, and you're very welcome. Like I said, it's difficult for me to give a truly impartial review because I'm of course familiar with his life and work; to really gauge how successful a bio is, what it may be missing that we see as so obvious, you almost have to find someone who's never heard of the person to read over it. Would you believe I was lucky enough to find such a partner while writing Emily Dickinson? Roger Davies knew nothing about the Belle of Amherst and her quirky poetry, which made for a far more complete article, I think. :) Best of luck, and let me know if you need anything else. María ( habla con migo) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, TK! I just wanted to say that I like the new look of your userpage--very nice! I should probably do something similar at some point... Talk to you later, • Cinch Bug • 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88,
I recently nominated the TV series article for
WP:GAN and I wanted to know if you could help me paraphrase the two quoted paragraphs in the
editing section.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk
22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Hope everything is good. Sorry I started that excessive conversation on Infoboxes. I didn't realize it would be controversal. You said you had interest in Stephenson, would you be able to copy edit Quicksilver (novel)? It passed GA review, but one FA reviewer is pointing to grammar/clarity of language sort of stuff, suggested I find the experts and I noticed your were part of the Copy Editor's guild. Hope you can help, and good job on True at First Light. Sadads ( talk) 19:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't singling you out, sorry if you took offense. Wording like that is a pet peeve of mine. I think it's from the science background. If folks want to use them they should qualify with "Who" said it(e.g. "Some historians such as Jones, Smith, and Rogers"). It's something that has plagued that article for a good 4-5 years.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88! Could you have a look at TheRamblingMan's comment (Was the battle when the temples were constructed or were they constructed after the battle?) over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (temples)/archive1 and see if it can be made not ambiguous? bamse ( talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted you to know that I am satisfied with True at First Light. I think you pulled together a lot of material nicely and presented a balanced picture. I am passing the article. Good work! Xtzou ( Talk) 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
By all means keep editing, TK. My concern isn't with the content as such, only with trying to help the dispute be resolved. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi TK, looking at the revision history of Catholic Church, this plaudit is really yours. Haldraper ( talk) 09:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I know what you mean about library renewals; I can't tell you the number of times I've checked out A Stephen Crane Encyclopedia; I really should buy it, as it's got me through two FAs now. :) GA reviews aren't ever really archived per se; the transclusion (which lists the GA1 subpage in full) may ultimately be removed from the bottom of the talk page, but the review link will always be available in the article history banner. I always make a point of addressing the reviewer's comments in full, even after they've stopped watching the page. You never know when an adamant reviewer will appear at FAC and decides to make sure that everything was taken care of during previous reviews. Sometimes editors say "I did everything the reviewer said", when that's not the case, so it's much better to have proof in your nomination statement. In short, keep commenting and responding -- it's a good safeguard, and it may also help you keep track of what has been done and what hasn't. If you have any other questions, let me know. María ( habla con migo) 12:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see this one is the biblio. It's not new (1987) but it has some insights I don't find elsewhere, particularly between the life and the particular pieces of fiction. Probably because it's rather snarky and pulls no punches about Hemingway's darker side(s). Not a hatchet job, but very far from hagiography. Do you know the work? S B H arris 19:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for the edits to Ernest Hemingway! The edit summary made me laugh - indeed I do seem to have forgotten how to use punctuation lately, but worse was the tense problem. Burned out last night before I got to the later parts of the article, and sometimes when I'm adding, I don't really read what I've written until later so as to be able to fix better. Anyway, finally I think this work is almost done, and wanted to thank you, again, for the help. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I have found a few colons in EH, but he uses them to indicate a time lapse, perhaps in places where the prudish editor would have blue penciled a sex scene. There's one of these in The Sun Also Rises that may stand for an episode of oral sex (!) between the inpotent Jake and the nymphomaniacal Brett. Or so suggests K.S.Lynn. And he may be right as there is lots of interesting circumstantial evidence: Jake Barnes is named from two (count 'em) two clear lesbian references among EH's circle in Paris. Talk about a guy living the Tantalus myth. But he does it with grace. ;).
I've been watching you work on the EH article and haven't done much as I've been waiting for you to "finish", but there are some other connections I'd like to add or change. For example, I notice that gone is fact that EH blew the entire top half of his head off. Which wouldn't be important, except that it's rather a suicide in the EH style: looking Death absolutely in the face and doing it with total abandon (who uses TWO shotgun cartriges at the same time??), and not some wimpy shoot-yourself-in-the-temple or the chest with a pistol thing. So it is characteristic. As also his not giving a damn what Mary would find. Hemingway in Spain two years before treated Mary with typical selfishness, so why should he change as he got crazy? EH could view women as objects, and he certain viewed bodies as objects. There's a reference to Alpine Idyll in the article, but the true "unnatural" part in that story is NOT the delay in getting the body out (that happens at about the right time) but the use of the dead wife as a lantern post in between. This all happens in one understated paragraph (compare Faulkner's A Rose For Emily). This may be one of EH's "why not?" stories, or it may be subliminal statement of his view on women, or it may simply be his comment on death, as in it turning the wife into "a statue" in A Farewell To Arms. The theme of death in EH is treated in two ways which underscore the anxiety and horror by simply never talking about them. In A Natural History of Death there is a deliberately taken lightly humorous tone. And in other stories, people facing death never talk of fear and the narator never mentions fear. Thus the unmentioned becomes the elephant in the room, and it's very effective. The iceberg style sometimes extends to omitting an emotion completely, so long as its clear that it must be there. This causes the reader to look harder for it. Like poor Barnes' feelings about his plight. S B H arris 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm going to start on this in the next two or three days, and wanted to check a couple of things with you before I get going. First, I noticed that you don't have any of the in-laws, e.g. Jack's wife or Mariel's husband. Do you want to include them? Also, take a look at this tree and see if you like the colour scheme, with blue for the lines, better than the all black lines. (And check out the weird tree connections for Flann Sinna on that first one; Hemingway is going to be simple by comparison.) Finally, I plan to put all the dates in, including divorce dates and marriage dates, as e.g. "div. 4 Nov 1940". My feeling is that if there's room, it's best to use that date format as it's unambiguous; 4/11/1940 means different things on different sides of the Atlantic. If you'd prefer e.g. "Nov 4, 1940", let me know. Also, I don't have all the dates for all the people on the chart -- e.g. birth date for Elizabeth Richardson, or marriage date for Mariel Hemingway. If you want me to include them, let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at File:Ernest Hemingway family tree.svg and see what you think; I still have to do some formatting tweaks, give it a bigger border, and so on, but see what you think. Also please proofread for errors. It's easy to change the font, layout, colours, and so on, so feel free to ask for any changes you like. Mike Christie (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
One last comment: you might want to add your sources for the biographical data on the family members to the file itself. It's not important for the FA candidacy of Hemingway, since you're not including the picture directly, just linking to it, but it would be good to have the sources with the tree. Good luck with the FA candidacy, when you get there. Mike Christie (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
On April 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iceberg Theory, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
-- Cirt ( talk) 16:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Truthkeeper, so glad to hear you're almost done with Hemingway! You're my hero. I'm in the middle of my own push for FAC with an article of my own, so I'm afraid I don't have much time for Dante. From what I can quickly see of the article, it's really quite limited, isn't it? I'll make a few comments at the review, although I'm afraid I'll be a poor substitute for Awadewit -- aren't we all? :) María ( habla con migo) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper,
as you added
[1] the following sentence to the lead of the article, isn't there a word missing or one too much of "of by" in "and is unique because it incorporates the city's history of by beginning the carnival with the symbolic freeing of the bear" ? --
Túrelio (
talk)
19:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think AGatha Christie's birth and death date are needed in the first sentence of every book she wrote, so please don't add them. The article are about the books, not about her. I've deleted a few - if you think otherwise, please take it to the Talk page of one of those books! - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page, but thought I should go into more detail here! Thanks for your kind welcome back! I'm going to have a go at avoiding contentious articles and disputes, so you may not see *that* much of me now that I'm back ;-)
How are things in IB? Naturally, that's one area I'd ideally like to avoid, if at all possible...!
Cheers, TFOWR This flag once was red 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The article looks fine so far, but I think the DYK nomination could benefit from a hook that is ... "hookier" :) Regards Hekerui ( talk) 20:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88! It took a while this time, but I completed one more National Treasure list. Hope you have time to bring it up to featured list quality. The list is this one and as usual the intro needs some copyedits. bamse ( talk) 16:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernese Fassnacht (Carnival), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 16:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Truthkeeper, thank you for reaching out. As you have surely determined, I am fairly new to GOCE and still learning the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia editing. I joined GOCE for a simple reason - copy editing and writing are two facets of my every day job and felt this was a good way to contribute to Wikipedia while honing my skills - and I love doing it. No worries about curtness, a person's tone or intent can be easily misconstrued in email/chat/posts. Sometimes it's very easy to forget this principle and get wrapped up in a discussion that may be completely off-mark from its original meaning. I hope that I have not come off in any sort of bad light, and if so, I am truly sorry, it was never my intent.
I understand your reservations about the backlog drive and your perspective on the purpose of GOCE. My take-away from recent experience is that it is all very subjective, that I need to follow my gut. I am not all that interested in the competition of earning barn stars or any other notoriety. I agree with you on the requests for FAC and GA, short deadlines are not typically effective, especially when I don't normally have the available time. You may have noticed the Quicksilver FAC review had expired before I made any real progress for this reason. That one was a real interesting challenge that can only benefit by further contribution by other editors. My focus is becoming defined by the more comprehensive (or holistic) approach that merges copy editing and content development. I find it very hard to do one while ignoring the other. This is how I can best make contributions to Wikipedia. And believe me, I will be very selective about responding to short deadline requests!
Much appreciated. dtgriffith ( talk) 04:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of the coordinator of the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog elimination drive for May 2010,
ɳorɑfʈ
Talk!, I would like to thank you for your active participation in the Drive.
I am writing to inform you that we have introduced additional Guild of Copy Editors' Gold Star Awards for the drive. To qualify, you will need to add an asterisk to all the full copyedits you have completed from the Requests page. More information can be found in the awards section of the Drive. If you have any questions, please post them to the Drive's talk page. Once again, thank you for participating, and we look forward to a meaningful drop in the numbers due to your hard work and efforts. |
Hey, TK, I finally got around to addressing the comments you made at FAC. [2] So whaddya think? Is it now ready to resubmit for FAC? I ask because your comments were one of the reasons it didn't pass, so I wanted your opinion before I move forward. Not that it's your fault, though; I got busy and didn't address them in time. Thanks for your review, though--anything to make the article better, doncha know. -- Christine ( talk) 04:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, TK! User:EeepEeep keeps trying to put a list of enemies on his talk page and he lists you as one of these so-called "intentionally destructive" editors. Here's a diff: [3]. Later, • Cinch Bug • 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hadley Richardson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
This Copyeditor's Barnstar is a sign of my gratitude for your copy-editing of Codex Vaticanus. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 12:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC) |
It was good piece of work. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 12:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! It was a fun project, and one that I really enjoyed researching; I'm glad you liked reading it. :) Speaking of FAs, I intend to re-read Hemingway within the next several days, but I haven't quite found the time for it yet. When I do, I'll comment on the FAC. As for userboxes, no worries; I "stole" all of mine from various other user pages, except maybe the polar bear one; I think I actively looked for that at WP:USERBOX. María ( habla con migo) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Cropped, auto-white balance, and choice of auto-equalize/auto-color enhance in GIMP. Smallman12q ( talk) 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Cmagha ( talk) 01:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha; wanted to thank you for asking if the Irving Literary Society was an academic paper requiring preservation. The entire AfD was a fiasco; many of us were new to the editing process, and we pretty much botched that effort. There were about six undergraduates involved. They have recovered from the experience. I am a mentor to them; the article is now on my User page, as we rework it. Again, thanks for your concern.
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
Congratulations! Truthkeeper88 for all of your hard work in bringing Ernest Hemingway as far as you did, all the way to FA. I am pleased to have helped. Modernist ( talk) 03:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the barnstar and for your early encouragement, giving me confidence to keep going!
Truthkeeper88 (
talk)
11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The Flaming Joel-wiki
I award this Flaming Joel-wiki to Truthkeeper88 for their great efforts in updating one of Billy Joel's recommended core articles. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
A Barnstar for all the great work you have done to solve whatever problems with articles that I raise Sadads ( talk) 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
Really, you seem to be everywhere I go, and help solve lots of mistakes and issues which I raise. Sadads ( talk) 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88! Having more time now, I put the article up at FLC. Comments are going to appear here. bamse ( talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Metabaronic ( talk) 06:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What about the Importance? Isn't a Nebula winner and Hugo nominee significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I made a whole lot of changes and responded to your comments. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 00:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC))
Can I start editing the Mau Mau article now? I can make a pretty decent job of it, I've read a lot about Mau Mau and I'm unemployed at the moment! Scott's given up, I destroyed him on the Discussion page, see for yourself. Sh33pl0re ( talk) 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I nominated National Treasures of Japan at WP:FAC. The comment/suggestions page is this one. Let's see what happens... bamse ( talk) 14:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Quick question: Do you prefer US or UK spelling? bamse ( talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to use this script for the US->UK conversion, but need to figure out how to use it. Another quick question: User:Nikkimaria had some issues with image stacking in the "categories" section. Do you think it is possible to fix that, or would it be better if I just removed all those images? bamse ( talk) 16:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Re new edits:
bamse ( talk) 08:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I am reading through the whole article now. Comments follow...
Done. Nothing more to critizise. Feel free to leave a note that copy-editing is done. bamse ( talk) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Checked your recent (7) edits and all looks fine. BTW, do you see any -or/-our issues as suggested in the review? I don't. bamse ( talk) 16:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Smallman12q ( talk) 01:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Done it myself not so long ago, can't remember which AfD though. TFOWR propaganda 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Dragon (Beowulf), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88, you are really doing a great job on the articles you write. Both The Dragon (Beowulf) and Edmund Evans are written very well. I wish I were able to write as you are. Please feel absolutely free to ask me, if you need some help with uploading more images. Best wishes.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Quick reply to The Rambling Man's comment, impressive! Thanks. bamse ( talk) 20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
...you this question, too. I'm guessing you don't mind too much, but I'm curious. (And I'm trying to avoid anything too serious for the next several days, so may as well catch up on the non-serious stuff...!) TFOWR idle vapourings 11:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm always interested, you should know that by now! TFOWR idle vapourings 17:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Collapsed a lengthyish essay, to keep your talk page scrollable...
|
---|
I think some of the hostility towards admins is justified. Don't get me wrong - some of it is nonsense. I worked with two editors in dispute; both editors were blocked by the same admin, the second editor cried "admin abuse, bias, obvious bias because admin is X [they're not]" etc. That's obvious nonsense. But some of it justified. Admins should be the same as every other editor, just with a few extra tools. But one of those tools is the power to block users. And other admins. And to make matters worse, there's clearly a belief (one I share, if I'm honest) that "editors-in-good-standing" (by which I mean: the ones we encounter everyday, doing all that work, etc) should get preferential treatment. The community puts up with our eccentricities because we're a net-positive. So Joe IP says "fucking grammar police" and gets blocked. An admin says "fucking grammar police" and we all laugh. Except a few editors (in good standing) who don't understand the hypocrisy. Another time an admin says "fucking grammar police" and is blocked, and we all celebrate. Except a few editors (in good standing) who don't understand the hypocrisy. And this debate is played out all over - from civility to inclusionism/deletionism, from copyright to copy-editing. I have a huge amount of faith in "the community" (all of us, from the IP, through the non-autoconfirmed but newly registered and enthusiastic editor, to the seasoned editor), and I think in the long run we'll solve the problems we have now (and find new problems...!) However, that does mean that we need to consider how to solve our problems. I don't know what the answer is to hostility towards admins, or "unfair blocks" by "bad admins". I had a coversation recently about RfA in general, and WP:RECALL in particular. Firstly, I'd definitely want to be open to recall - if the community decided that I was fit to have additional tools, I'd want the same community to be able to hold me to account. However, I don't know if this is necessarily the solution (you'll appreciate that my belief in recall is fairly closely tied to my beliefs in general - black cat and all that). I can totally see recall being abused, and getting the balance right between being accountable and creating unnecessary disruption is hard. My argument at WT:RFA was largely that the community fixes the problem organically: if the community decides that recall is good, over time more and more admins get appointed who are recallable. You'll note, though, that that doesn't solve anything today ;-) Apologies for the essay, you'll appreciate that I've been thinking about this stuff quite a lot recently (you'd think I'd have some answers by now, though, wouldn't you ;-) Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, even though I'm still going ahead with the RfA (though you'd be forgiven for thinking that I'm not, given that I still haven't answered any questions, or accepted... must get back to sandbox...!) |
Here's my long response:
Collapsed a lengthyish essay in response to lengthyish essay above.
|
---|
Blocked editors will be hostile, but that's different than some of the other stuff I've watched/read recently. A good example is our nightmare experience last summer. It should not have taken so long for that editor to be indeffed (and maybe now it would happen more quickly), and once blocked the already scary level of hostility and incivility was amplified. Furthermore, I think a comment like this is much more uncivil than the run-of-the-mill "fuck off, leave me alone" stuff that goes on all the time. The first should not be ignored because it's from a sock of a problem editor; the second is harmless. I agree that admins should be regular editors with more tools, but some take it more seriously, and that's where the disconnect is created. You, with your cat-like dispostion (black cat and all), will do well as an admin, but I think it must be very difficult not to choose sides/tribes, so at times, I suspect you'll be torn. I strongly agree that established editors have to have some leeway. After all, we're building an encyclopedia and it's bloody hard. (I've spent the last few days learning about Victorian printing techniques and then, slowly edit by edit, building an article.) I'm okay at this, but some people are spectacular and should simply be left alone to do what they do best. Writing is hard and lonely work - this is a great writing and learning community, but we have to come to terms with the fact that those who can do the heavy lifting might not want to be interrupted with petty bullshit while they're working - or the flipside is that it's too easy to be sidetracked and pulled into the dramah, easier than writing articles. WP:RECALL is a good idea in theory, but can be gamed. If someone doesn't like what you've done then they call ask for a recall. What will be necessary is a WP:Rfr (request for recall) and have the community decide. I actually did think that you hadn't fully decided because I hadn't seen any action on the blue-ink page yet—so I thought it was okay to butt in. Obviously you have my full support. We need people like you, who are willing to work on policy and understand the concept of community (and the concept of herding cats!) |
It was all a ploy to get you into your sandbox! Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to make a few changes. For example, I think it very unlikely that he had a skull fracture and CSF leak after his first plane crash-- the one everybody hiked out of and took a boat from. Mary had some broken ribs, but had EH suffered that bad a head wound I think he'd have had far worse problems getting out of the bush. Almost all his significant injuries happened in the second crash, I think. I have the Baker bio on order, but you might check it, as well as ITS source. I think there's been some medical error, here, by somebody. S B H arris 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Could you have a quick look at bullet points 2 and 4 of Jujutacular's comments here. The sentence: "Most entries (6) are located in the Tokyo National Museum." is meant to say that out of all the locations mentioned in the table (i.e., in the "present location" column), the Tokyo National Museum is appears most often. Or expressed differently: "There is no location with more archaeological national treasures than the TNM." bamse ( talk) 16:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You should add a Fair Use Rationale - here is a link [5] to a picture of Mark Rothko that Tyrenius added today with a copyright and Fair Use explanation. You might use this as an example for the image of Pound and his mother... Modernist ( talk) 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the infobox, as its 'influenced by' and 'influence on' sects were uncited and listy and specualtive. Any objection if I spin out the "Selected works" BIT to a seperate article with a main: link on this bio page. Ceoil ( talk) 22:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The Old School League of Copyeditors Barnstar | |
For your copyediting efforts during the May 2010 Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive, editing 23 articles with a combined total of 26,301 words, I hereby award you this Old School League of Copyeditors Barnstar. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! -- Diannaa TALK 03:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Sharon Kay Penman.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if somebody didn't screw up on the date of this photo, which would make Patrick 18.5 years old and Gregory 15. Does that look like a 15 yo boy to you? He looks about 10 or no more than 12. I think this is WW II photo taken by Marty Gellhorn, but can't prove it. It's in the JFK collection, uploaded by you-- do you know anything about it? S B H arris 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The short answer is that I have no answer and doubt that one could be obtained on EH even if he got into a time machine in 1960 and went forward 50 years, to now, for treatment. There are no lab or objective tests for bipolar disorder, even now. The only way to obtain such answers would be to dry him out thoroughly, to see what was "left" after a fairly long sober period. And of course he probably would not cooperate, just as he didn't at the Mayo, doing whatever he had to, and looking as good as he needed to, to be able to get out and drink again (or kill himself). Such is the very nature of severe alcoholism. Perhaps he could have been kept more comfortable with some modern alcohol replacement; there is a terrible fight in the treatment community whether to use these things or not, past the stage where they're needed to stop the DT's. And the psychiatrists fight the other dogs for inpatient days for treatment of people who have substance-dependancy, vs that plus (perhaps) some other mental illness. A trendy thing. For an example, see: [7].
Simple severe long-standing alcoholism is the "Ockam's razor" diagnosis for EH. Alcoholics are all depressed, and have a very high rate of suicide. They all feel good and jolly when drinking, and they all have anhedonia and are mean, depressed, paranoid, and even suicidal when not. They cannot do creative work when drunk, and certainly not when sober, so they get what they can done, in the halfway state, and it's often not very good (though patches can be edited together). Writers, for obvious reasons, survive in this existence, better than people with fixed-hour jobs. All the male US Nobel lit laureates have been lushes to a great extent, though EH was probably the worst. F. Scott Fitzgerald might have won the Nobel, too, if he hadn't succumbed to drink.
The cycle between drunk and non-drunk looks a lot like bipolar disease, and you simply cannot tell one from the other in a person who became alcohol-dependent long before he developed mood swings, and who won't stop drinking entirely long enough to see if they persist over long adaption to sobriety. And of course there's a huge chicken-egg relationship between the two problems.
As for hemochromatosis, it can cause diabetes, and even some mental problems, but isn't a common cause of either diabetes of mental problems, even in people who certainly have it. It's certainly exacerbated by alcohol, if a person has one of several genes for it. It's entirely possible EH had it, but it wasn't doing much to him. Today there are genetic tests but there was no test in 1960 but a liver biopsy. There was a treatment (iron depletion by blood letting) but it takes months, often years, and I have no record that anybody tried in EH (the biggest reason to treat the disease is so that suffers don't get liver cancer, actually). His mental symptoms are far more likely to have been caused by alcohol and ECT (shock therapy) which today nobody would do on an alcoholic until they'd been dried out (and of course treated with the antidepressants that didn't exist in 1960-- but even absent them, nobody would shock an alcoholic who'd recently been drinking). Again, there's no point in treating ANY mental disease by ANY means in a substance-abuser, until they are sober (meaning many months, even a year or two, without the drug they're dependent on). The reasons are: 1) treatment doesn't work and 2) diagnosis is always confused and unreliable.
I suppose my conclusion is that no psychiatrist could differentiate these things today based on what I know of EH's history, so it's pretty certain that while EH was drinking (and he never stopped) it's impossible to imagine that anybody could make a half-way reliable diagnosis in 1960. EH began binge-drinking nearly continuously after finishing Bell Tolls about 1940, as I read it. So you'd have to have a very, very clear bipolar picture before that, to even guess that he might have had it as a separate and early problem from alcohol. And I really don't see much evidence of it in his bios. What do you think? While married to Hadley and Pauline, I have the impression of a man in quite good physical and mental health. And of course he did his best writing then, also. After that, it was fighting the terrible effects of alcohol and its treatment, to his last moment. If I can fault the Mayo, it is in their not recognizing their primary problem. I think they blew it. But then, they hadn't read the bios that we have, had they? And also, alcoholics are wiley, and intelligent and rich alcoholics even wiley-er. The Mayo would have had to have a dedicated "Betty Ford Center" to even have had a chance with EH, and of course they did not. S B H arris 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the
help page).
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
At first glance I think the article needs to be divided into another separate article or articles - et.al. Complete works by Ernest Hemingway, and/or Novels by Ernest Hemingway etc. that would link to the main biography as reflected in the template and with links to the books. You can see examples of what I mean at Vincent van Gogh, William Blake and El Greco, 3 great articles that have links to related articles about the aspects of the artists life and works. Another terrific editor to consult with is User:TonyTheTiger. You are doing an excellent job by the way... Modernist ( talk) 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Try WP:PR.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I know you are busy right now. Just not to forget I put this note here. List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) is complete but (as usual) the lead section needs a bit of smoothing. Thanks and take your time. It is not urgent at all. bamse ( talk) 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Same thing for List of National Treasures of Japan (residences). bamse ( talk) 11:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for copy-editing the shrines list. It is in the queue for WP:FLC, but has to wait since not more than one nomination per user is encouraged. If you feel like it, besides List of National Treasures of Japan (residences) also List of National Treasures of Japan (castles) is ready to be copy-edited for FLC. Since nominations are slow, there is no need to rush with either. I am now starting to improve the main National Treasures of Japan article, which will take some time. Hoping to get it up to GA status one day. bamse ( talk) 12:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks, I'll have a look. Still troubleshooting the sandbox. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 19:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, TK! I haven't been around much and, when I am, I'm usually only here briefly. But I just wanted to drop by and say, "Nice job!" for all your recent work on the Harlan Hanson article, especially your extensive work back in October. The article looks great. Regards, • Cinch Bug • 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Very glad to see that you are already working on the residences list. Thank you. Just two comments:
Hey Truthkeeper88 nice work with The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie and I will add it to FAC again, but can you copyedit the new text (about Coney Island where the "Crazy Car" music video was shot) here. I paraphrased everything. Thanx! ATC . Talk 02:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what the problem is. I see it at both WP:PR and wp:pr/d when I search for Hemingway with my browser. You made need to WP:BYC. Peer reviews are listed by a bot, so it takes them up to an hour to appear after being made, but that time has long since passed. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
No no no, please don't bail out, you have been doing a great job - picking up things i can't believe i missed. I just tidied a couple of points, but if you are free to look through more of the article, everyone would be very grateful. Thanks for your work. hamiltonstone ( talk) 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88! Hope you are having a great holiday. The FLC of List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) failed with one "support" and no "oppose" due to a lack of reviews. I renominated it and asked the wikiprojects Japan and Visual Arts for help with reviews. The new comments will appear here. bamse ( talk) 09:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) got featured! Thanks for the good copy-editing work. I noticed that you put the intro of National Treasures of Japan to the Japanese art sandbox. Shall I have a look over it? bamse ( talk) 09:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I added a bit more to lead expanding "also featuring", by explaining what character name they had. Can you copyedit it? Did I space the paragraphs bad? Thanx! ATC . Talk 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've been working on the article on the Greenlandic language, and it could use some copyediting by a native English speaker, so if you have the time I'd appreciate you dropping by. ·Maunus·ƛ· 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry about the revert last night to your good faith edit. It was late and I intended to fix today. Anyway, Mellow has the hotel name as Ambos only, which I though strange, but Meyers has the full name so that's fine. In fact Hemingway only spent a month in the hotel, and as was his habit, he worked on the manuscript in various places. He spent a fair amount of time in Sun Valley, at the Sun Valley Lodge finishing the rough draft. In my view, this is all too much info for the biography article, but would be very good in the separate article about the novel. I submitted the article for peer review a few days ago, and am awaiting comments as far as splitting up the sections. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Noble Prize. Please read Nobel Prize in Literature. Noble prizes are awarded for a body of work. Specific works may be cited as particularly noteworthy, but Noble Prizes are not awarded for individual works. The cite you gave me actually confirms what I'm saying. EeepEeep ( talk) 21:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
|
The Multiple Barnstar | |||||||
For the astonishingly manic, helpful copyediting push you did during the Fourth Battle of the International Space Station, in a subject you're not familiar with - you stepped in at just the right moment there! :-) Many, many thanks! Colds7ream ( talk) 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
Wow! A double barnstar! Thanks Colds7ream!! Congratulations! I enjoyed working on the article. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 21:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I replied at YellowMonkey's talk page. ATC . Talk 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the information template, adding better source links, but you did not add a copyright tag to the image, just claiming it as Public Domain, but I am not sure about that. Please check deeper for its current status and add the appropriate tag if it really is a PD image. Cheers ww2censor ( talk) 00:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I was having a look over the edits you made on the history section and am very happy with them. Just one minor question: did you remove "westernization" from the sentence "The rise of industrialization was another significant influence during the restoration with a negative impact on the cultural heritage in Japan" in "History->Background" on purpose or accidentally? I know that westernization is mentioned later (in "1871 Plan for the Preservation of Ancient Artifacts"), but I think it is an important aspect and should be mentioned already in "Background". Until the Bakumatsu, Japan was basically closed to foreign influences, so the opening to the west must have had a big influence on society (and culture). bamse ( talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Two quick comments on recent copy-edits (rest is very fine):
I read through the article once more (all except the intro) and fixed some typos and one real error which was due to me (in "Age of National Treasures"). bamse ( talk) 22:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88! I'm just in the course of a GAR for Greenlandic language. I have just enumerated a few points at Talk:Greenlandic language/GA1 that User:Maunus as the nominator of the article will address. But after that, the article could do with some good copyediting. Neither Maunus nor me are native speakers of English. After that and coping with a few additional matters, I'm quite confident that the article will qualify for GA. G Purevdorj ( talk) 22:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for the work you are doing on Ernest Hemingway. Such an important writer deserves a truly wonderful article and I look forward to the many improvements you will bring to the article. Awadewit ( talk) 02:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
Thank you Awadewit! The timing couldn't have been better: I was on the verge of giving up....
Truthkeeper88 (
talk)
13:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, noticed your name on the GOCE participants list, would you like to copy-edit " The Ex-Girlfriend", as I think it is (finally) ready for FAC after one more copy-edit. Thank you very much.-- Music 26/ 11 16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
I was in the process of writing you a message to ask to check the Cuba section but didn't want to be presumptious. Thank you, thank you, thank you for your additions! I am very ready to be done with this article, but the improvement is noticeable. When I have time, later in the week, will tackle the writing style section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It's always hard to know what to put in leave out in these things. I'm a little sorry to see some of the things go-- H's experience collecting body parts after the ammo manufacturing plant explosian obviously affected him deeply (see A Natural History of Death), and his description of the Greeks breaking the front legs of their pack animals and then leaving them to drown in shallow water at Smyrna almost deserves to be quoted. A scene that calls for a Goya indeed! He used that scene in two places. One notices all kinds of stylistic quirks, and I don't know how many have been properly "noticed" by critics. One thing is that H. doesn't always pay attention to proper paragraph breaking, and the effect is sometimes a little like whiplash, as he suddently changes course in the middle of a paragraph and you come out the other side with a totally different direction. His sentences are models of journalism, but his paragraphs not. I don't think anybody has really said this. I think he did some of it deliberately.
Another is that Hemingway's people always show their character on their faces. His evil people are almost always ugly (at least the men are). The sexually predatory Wilson and the officer in A Simple Enquiry are both badly and chronically sunburned. What does this mean? Can't be coincidence. SBHarris 02:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sbharris" Hidden categories: Noindexed pages
Hi, TK! As I'm a fan of Supernatural, I have a bunch of Supernatural-related articles on my watchlist and noted that you just edited one of them. Do you watch the show, too? In any event, nice to see you. Regards, • Cinch Bug • 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Though all of what follows is original thought (forbidden on WP) I thought you'd be amused that I finally realized why Wilson has the red face. It's very old-style humour. As in four humours.
When H. talks about a fearful experience faced properly "cleaning out the liver" it's clear he's interested in talking about the humoural theories of character. In this one, the lilly-livered persons who have excessive yellow bile, have it replaced by good red blood. That happens to Macomber.
And Wilson? He's the personification of the sanginary warlike bloody-minded personality. His red complexion shows he is Mars, god of war and manly courage. And red is the color of lust. Wilson is fearless and knows how to dominate, control and bend the world to his will. As a Roman gladiator, he respects ONLY courage. He respects the lion for continuing to crawl with its head half blown off (his praise of the lion is not for its size). He loses all respect for Wilson after the lion episode, and is only piqued when Wilson frankly admits his own bolting like a rabbit. The first step in controlling his own fear being to acknowlege it openly-- clearly a step up from Macomber's earlier worry about if Wilson will talk about it-- which disgusts Wilson as another form of cowardice. Finally, he begins to like Macomber when the latter shoots the buffalo and finally faces down his wife, easily acknowledging his change of heart and new outlook as a fact.
Component-wise, there isn't much else TO Wilson, which is why, without any evidence of character-change, he's not the main character. He has the cannon .505 to symbolize his overgrown manhood, and he says that loss of fear and what replaces it is the "main thing a man has." It's certainly the main thing Wilson has; it's very nearly the ONLY thing Wilson has. Like George Armstrong Custer, Wilson has physical courage and the power to dominate and kill anything, but no other admirable qualities. Margot is said in the story to have recognized Wilson's "main talent," and clearly, this is it. It does not change. His character is shallow. H says twice that his eyes are flat, and they reflect the depth of Wilson's soul. He may switch from telegraphic English to almost elegant lawyer-ese at the end, but it's again just another of his ways to refuse to be dominated, and to win. In this case, win out over Margot, who is not going to tell the story of his chasing the buffalo, with this over her head. Wilson is angry, but not deeply; deep moral questions don't trouble him. He can self-justify any action so long as it doesn't get in the way of his chief value, which is facing danger and/or challenge and beating it down or breaking it down, like a lion with a bullet though the shoulders, or a woman who needs to learn to use the word "please."
Macomber is unappreciated, even by Wilson. We see him transcend himself (and his many other qualities which neither his wife nor his guide see, or have any use for) to finally win out over the rather natural first reaction to a wounded lion. Even the brave man fears a lion three times, as H says. Macomber needs time. As a far more complete man than Wilson at the end (his face is "shining"), of course the transcended Macomber doesn't and can't last long in the real world, but must be sacrificed by the bitch-goddess, as on the mythic alter or cross of all perfect things destroyed by the fearful who sense their power threatened. And Margot clearly is the Sanhedrin. H's critics have far more sympathy for her than H. does-- it's hard to see how they can be so blind to H's meaning. S B H arris 11:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the "6.5 Mannlicher" is not much of a weapon for big game, though if the 6.5x54mm Mannlicher-Schönauer is meant, it was used on lions on safari (nobody would do that today). Hemingway and Percival hunted with this weapon, but the wiki says he called it a ".256 Mannlicher". Not in this story. When he calls it a 6.5 Mannlicher, one almost wonders if Hemingway wasn't referring to the shorter cased 6.5 x 52 Mannlicher-Carcano cartridge, which is also known as the 6.5 Italian, and which H. would have been very familiar with, from his time in Italy in WW I. The Carcano rifle that fires that round is very famous as Oswald's surplus Italian 1940 Carcano rifle, which he used to hit JKF just about where Margo hits Francis. Coincidence, of course, unless Oswald read a lot of Hemingway before he ordered the rifle second-hand from Klein's. Which is not impossible. Anyway, a good rifle for shooting people, but not buffalo. A hole in the plot is how and where Margo ever learns to use it, given her stated distaste for hunting. Perhaps on tin cans.
P.S. have you tried fish oil loading for migraines? No side effects, but 5 to 10 grams a day helps a lot of people, though it takes some weeks to work fully. S B H arris 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnsensu! You deserve it at least as much as me. As you probably noticed List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) just got featured, so I nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (castles). Review comments will turn up here. I also generated an intro for the List of National Treasures of Japan (temples), but it needs to be compressed quite a bit. I'll let you know when I am done with it and hand it over to you to make it perfect (unless you've had enough of national treasuers). bamse ( talk) 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Quick question. WFCforlife asked to have the short table in the statistics section of the castle list converted to prose. How about this: The eight national treasures are distributed over four castles as follows: Himeji Castle has five castle national treasures, Hikone Castle, Inuyama Castle and Matsumoto Castle each have one national treasure. [nb 1] [nb 2] bamse ( talk) 13:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I moved the intro to List of National Treasures of Japan (temples) and it is rather longish even though I shortened it a bit. Honestly, I don't really know how and where to shorten it further (maybe I am too involved with the subject). Maybe the early history (most of 2nd paragraph could be removed, since most of the temples mentioned in the text are not a national treasure. Or maybe the detailed description of the various styles could be removed, or... Do you have a suggestion, where to cut? bamse ( talk) 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to pick my brain regarding Ernest Hemingway - I'll offer you all the advice I can. You might also look at Emily Dickinson, William Shakespeare, Stephen Crane, and Samuel Johnson. These are all good FAs on authors. Awadewit ( talk) 22:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I like what you've done with the place! You are quite the busy bee. Nice job. I like the larger image for the hexagon. Let me know if you would like for me to help out. I may have some free time in the upcoming weeks. Regards La mome ( talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Just as a follow-up, I've started another thread at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ObserverNY. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I had a look over your recent changes in the sandbox. Good choice cutting what you cut. 1st and 2nd paragraph are fine.
That's it for now. Keep up the good work! bamse ( talk) 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
...I think my talk page ought to be off-limits to new editors. Let them come to their own conclusions. :-) -- Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
The DYK project ( nominate) 06:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! That was lovely to see! Awadewit ( talk) 00:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I willl take a look at the article later when I have a little more time. As for the references you asked about, they don't have to be online. Online references are preferred because they are usually easier to verify, but offline resources are perfectly acceptable provided that in theory someone could find the source in a library etc and verify what is says. To that end there is the {{ Cite journal}} template for use in such cases. Links to Amazon as a source for notability are generally frowned upon because they could be seen as promoting the sale of the book. Hope this helps. – ukexpat ( talk) 17:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I nominated the image for deletion as replaceable. Regards Hekerui ( talk) 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Shubinator ( talk) 00:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again with this article. As suggested in the GA-review, I am adding a little text to the short sections in National_Treasures_of_Japan#Categories_of_National_Treasures in order to reduce empty space. Could you have a look over it. So far it concerns only National_Treasures_of_Japan#Miscellaneous_structures and National_Treasures_of_Japan#Historical_materials but I am planning to add to the castles section as well. bamse ( talk) 12:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This change has messed up the page. Tried to revert it but it's more complicated than that
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=A_Farewell_to_Arms&diff=next&oldid=345243795 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.117.233 ( talk) 06:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The castle list got featured, so I nominated List of National Treasures of Japan (residences). Thanks. I guess you already know where to find the nomination page ;-) bamse ( talk) 10:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, how are you? Could you take a look at Quicksilver (novel). Though I am not quite done with the plot summary, the article is almost complete and I have been working on it for a while. Do you have any thoughts on it? Thanks for your help and I just checked out True at First Light! Sadads ( talk) 18:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Those issues are not to bad and a GA review does not have to be as precise as say a FA review. At this point it appears very good and should be reviewed for feedback at the very least, to see if there is anything we have missed. Sadads ( talk) 18:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: For future readers, I was in no way offended by his language, actually we do other collaborative stuff as well. Sadads ( talk) 22:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 18:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Calmer Waters 06:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Or just remove the words. Things like "Once again Penman places the characters against a tightly woven rich tapestry of medieval life, personal conflict, and dramatic characters" are completely inappropriate for an encyclopaedia, and the wording leads me to think (apologies if I'm incorrect in the assertion) that they're taken straight from the journal article. Ironholds ( talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- In Penman's final volume of her trilogy based on the lives of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine (When Christ and His Saints Slept; Time and Chance), the best-selling author concludes the tumultuous love story between these two strong-willed, brilliant rulers. As the novel opens, their four sons are beginning to chafe under the heavy hand of their father, who has crowned the eldest, Hal, as a coregent but gives him little authority or power. Egged on by their mother, the young king and his brothers mount a decade-long crusade of rebellion and treachery against their father and each other as they vie for land, money, and power. The empathetic reader can't help but be both horrified by the machinations of this grievously dysfunctional family and filled with pity for the pain they inflict upon one another. Penman does a remarkable job of depicting passionate, dramatic characters and the perilous times in which they live. For those who like their historical fiction as complex and tightly woven as a medieval tapestry, this book cannot fail to please. Highly recommended. [See Prepub Alert, LJ 6/1/08.] [1]
You scared me for a moment. I thought you were Truthseeker666(recently indef'd) do to the similarity of names. However, given your polite attitude present here on this talk page, I do not think that is the case. Happy editing.— Dæ dαlus Contribs 01:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Materialscientist ( talk) 09:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The Content Review Medal of Merit | ||
This is for your cogent and helpful reviews of 1956 Winter Olympics as it navigated through FAC and 1948 Winter Olympics as it passed GAC. There are precious few editors willing to review the work of others, thanks for your contributions. H1nkles citius altius fortius 19:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
Gatoclass 03:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I have finally gotten around to reviewing this! Apologies for the delay. Awadewit ( talk) 17:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm so happy you're planning to read some of these books, too!!! After seeing your comments on Diarmaid McCulloch's History of Christianity I've ordered the book. I'm also reading Bokenkotter; Nancy respects his opinion very much, so it will be good for others of us to have read the book and see if her interpretations and choice of what material to use match with ours. I've also read Duffy's Saints and Sinners: A History of the Papacy through the 11th century. I'm planning right now to concentrate on the pre-1000 pieces of the history for now and then move on to other pieces of the history. We can either split the time difference or work together on the earlier parts. If you'd like, I can put all my notes in a sandbox for you to access (in case you don't want to read Duffy). I also started a section at the top of the article talk page for sources that I think need to be read. That may be a good place for both of us to list sources that we are planning to read for the history section as well. I'm becoming more and more optimistic that we might actually get a good article out of this mess. Karanacs ( talk) 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi! A while ago you mentioned that you'd be interested to bring Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos up to FA. Are you still interested? I contacted User:Johnbod who's been active on Jesuit reduction articles recently and he promised to help. Unfortunately I only have little time at the moment but am sure that sooner or later we can make it a FA. bamse ( talk) 20:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you already started. Concerning this edit it might be better to swap the order back because both, Moxos and Chiquitania are "northeast of the cordillera". All other edits looked fine as for content (noticed a sentence: "acceptance... was accepted" which should be rephrased. bamse ( talk) 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I replaced one map which created problems in the review. Also went through the failed candidacy and checked for outstanding issues which are collected here. Feel free to edit that page. bamse ( talk) 18:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper! Johnbod and me think that the article needs a little bit shuffling around (moving material to Jesuit reductions and possibly adding some more info). In order not to double work, it is maybe a good idea to pause copy-editing. What do you think? bamse ( talk) 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
No problem, and you're very welcome. Like I said, it's difficult for me to give a truly impartial review because I'm of course familiar with his life and work; to really gauge how successful a bio is, what it may be missing that we see as so obvious, you almost have to find someone who's never heard of the person to read over it. Would you believe I was lucky enough to find such a partner while writing Emily Dickinson? Roger Davies knew nothing about the Belle of Amherst and her quirky poetry, which made for a far more complete article, I think. :) Best of luck, and let me know if you need anything else. María ( habla con migo) 22:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, TK! I just wanted to say that I like the new look of your userpage--very nice! I should probably do something similar at some point... Talk to you later, • Cinch Bug • 19:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88,
I recently nominated the TV series article for
WP:GAN and I wanted to know if you could help me paraphrase the two quoted paragraphs in the
editing section.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk
22:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey. Hope everything is good. Sorry I started that excessive conversation on Infoboxes. I didn't realize it would be controversal. You said you had interest in Stephenson, would you be able to copy edit Quicksilver (novel)? It passed GA review, but one FA reviewer is pointing to grammar/clarity of language sort of stuff, suggested I find the experts and I noticed your were part of the Copy Editor's guild. Hope you can help, and good job on True at First Light. Sadads ( talk) 19:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't singling you out, sorry if you took offense. Wording like that is a pet peeve of mine. I think it's from the science background. If folks want to use them they should qualify with "Who" said it(e.g. "Some historians such as Jones, Smith, and Rogers"). It's something that has plagued that article for a good 4-5 years.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88! Could you have a look at TheRamblingMan's comment (Was the battle when the temples were constructed or were they constructed after the battle?) over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Treasures of Japan (temples)/archive1 and see if it can be made not ambiguous? bamse ( talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted you to know that I am satisfied with True at First Light. I think you pulled together a lot of material nicely and presented a balanced picture. I am passing the article. Good work! Xtzou ( Talk) 20:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
By all means keep editing, TK. My concern isn't with the content as such, only with trying to help the dispute be resolved. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 03:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi TK, looking at the revision history of Catholic Church, this plaudit is really yours. Haldraper ( talk) 09:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I know what you mean about library renewals; I can't tell you the number of times I've checked out A Stephen Crane Encyclopedia; I really should buy it, as it's got me through two FAs now. :) GA reviews aren't ever really archived per se; the transclusion (which lists the GA1 subpage in full) may ultimately be removed from the bottom of the talk page, but the review link will always be available in the article history banner. I always make a point of addressing the reviewer's comments in full, even after they've stopped watching the page. You never know when an adamant reviewer will appear at FAC and decides to make sure that everything was taken care of during previous reviews. Sometimes editors say "I did everything the reviewer said", when that's not the case, so it's much better to have proof in your nomination statement. In short, keep commenting and responding -- it's a good safeguard, and it may also help you keep track of what has been done and what hasn't. If you have any other questions, let me know. María ( habla con migo) 12:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see this one is the biblio. It's not new (1987) but it has some insights I don't find elsewhere, particularly between the life and the particular pieces of fiction. Probably because it's rather snarky and pulls no punches about Hemingway's darker side(s). Not a hatchet job, but very far from hagiography. Do you know the work? S B H arris 19:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again for the edits to Ernest Hemingway! The edit summary made me laugh - indeed I do seem to have forgotten how to use punctuation lately, but worse was the tense problem. Burned out last night before I got to the later parts of the article, and sometimes when I'm adding, I don't really read what I've written until later so as to be able to fix better. Anyway, finally I think this work is almost done, and wanted to thank you, again, for the help. Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 01:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I have found a few colons in EH, but he uses them to indicate a time lapse, perhaps in places where the prudish editor would have blue penciled a sex scene. There's one of these in The Sun Also Rises that may stand for an episode of oral sex (!) between the inpotent Jake and the nymphomaniacal Brett. Or so suggests K.S.Lynn. And he may be right as there is lots of interesting circumstantial evidence: Jake Barnes is named from two (count 'em) two clear lesbian references among EH's circle in Paris. Talk about a guy living the Tantalus myth. But he does it with grace. ;).
I've been watching you work on the EH article and haven't done much as I've been waiting for you to "finish", but there are some other connections I'd like to add or change. For example, I notice that gone is fact that EH blew the entire top half of his head off. Which wouldn't be important, except that it's rather a suicide in the EH style: looking Death absolutely in the face and doing it with total abandon (who uses TWO shotgun cartriges at the same time??), and not some wimpy shoot-yourself-in-the-temple or the chest with a pistol thing. So it is characteristic. As also his not giving a damn what Mary would find. Hemingway in Spain two years before treated Mary with typical selfishness, so why should he change as he got crazy? EH could view women as objects, and he certain viewed bodies as objects. There's a reference to Alpine Idyll in the article, but the true "unnatural" part in that story is NOT the delay in getting the body out (that happens at about the right time) but the use of the dead wife as a lantern post in between. This all happens in one understated paragraph (compare Faulkner's A Rose For Emily). This may be one of EH's "why not?" stories, or it may be subliminal statement of his view on women, or it may simply be his comment on death, as in it turning the wife into "a statue" in A Farewell To Arms. The theme of death in EH is treated in two ways which underscore the anxiety and horror by simply never talking about them. In A Natural History of Death there is a deliberately taken lightly humorous tone. And in other stories, people facing death never talk of fear and the narator never mentions fear. Thus the unmentioned becomes the elephant in the room, and it's very effective. The iceberg style sometimes extends to omitting an emotion completely, so long as its clear that it must be there. This causes the reader to look harder for it. Like poor Barnes' feelings about his plight. S B H arris 18:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, as a member of the Guild of Copy Editors you're hereby notified of and invited to participate in the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Backlog elimination drives/May 2010. Please help us eliminate the 8,000+ copyedit backlog! Participating editors will receive barnstars and other awards, according to their level of participation. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm going to start on this in the next two or three days, and wanted to check a couple of things with you before I get going. First, I noticed that you don't have any of the in-laws, e.g. Jack's wife or Mariel's husband. Do you want to include them? Also, take a look at this tree and see if you like the colour scheme, with blue for the lines, better than the all black lines. (And check out the weird tree connections for Flann Sinna on that first one; Hemingway is going to be simple by comparison.) Finally, I plan to put all the dates in, including divorce dates and marriage dates, as e.g. "div. 4 Nov 1940". My feeling is that if there's room, it's best to use that date format as it's unambiguous; 4/11/1940 means different things on different sides of the Atlantic. If you'd prefer e.g. "Nov 4, 1940", let me know. Also, I don't have all the dates for all the people on the chart -- e.g. birth date for Elizabeth Richardson, or marriage date for Mariel Hemingway. If you want me to include them, let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at File:Ernest Hemingway family tree.svg and see what you think; I still have to do some formatting tweaks, give it a bigger border, and so on, but see what you think. Also please proofread for errors. It's easy to change the font, layout, colours, and so on, so feel free to ask for any changes you like. Mike Christie (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
One last comment: you might want to add your sources for the biographical data on the family members to the file itself. It's not important for the FA candidacy of Hemingway, since you're not including the picture directly, just linking to it, but it would be good to have the sources with the tree. Good luck with the FA candidacy, when you get there. Mike Christie (talk) 12:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
On April 25, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iceberg Theory, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
-- Cirt ( talk) 16:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Truthkeeper, so glad to hear you're almost done with Hemingway! You're my hero. I'm in the middle of my own push for FAC with an article of my own, so I'm afraid I don't have much time for Dante. From what I can quickly see of the article, it's really quite limited, isn't it? I'll make a few comments at the review, although I'm afraid I'll be a poor substitute for Awadewit -- aren't we all? :) María ( habla con migo) 18:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper,
as you added
[1] the following sentence to the lead of the article, isn't there a word missing or one too much of "of by" in "and is unique because it incorporates the city's history of by beginning the carnival with the symbolic freeing of the bear" ? --
Túrelio (
talk)
19:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think AGatha Christie's birth and death date are needed in the first sentence of every book she wrote, so please don't add them. The article are about the books, not about her. I've deleted a few - if you think otherwise, please take it to the Talk page of one of those books! - DavidWBrooks ( talk) 21:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Replied on my talk page, but thought I should go into more detail here! Thanks for your kind welcome back! I'm going to have a go at avoiding contentious articles and disputes, so you may not see *that* much of me now that I'm back ;-)
How are things in IB? Naturally, that's one area I'd ideally like to avoid, if at all possible...!
Cheers, TFOWR This flag once was red 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The article looks fine so far, but I think the DYK nomination could benefit from a hook that is ... "hookier" :) Regards Hekerui ( talk) 20:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88! It took a while this time, but I completed one more National Treasure list. Hope you have time to bring it up to featured list quality. The list is this one and as usual the intro needs some copyedits. bamse ( talk) 16:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernese Fassnacht (Carnival), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist ( talk) 16:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Truthkeeper, thank you for reaching out. As you have surely determined, I am fairly new to GOCE and still learning the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia editing. I joined GOCE for a simple reason - copy editing and writing are two facets of my every day job and felt this was a good way to contribute to Wikipedia while honing my skills - and I love doing it. No worries about curtness, a person's tone or intent can be easily misconstrued in email/chat/posts. Sometimes it's very easy to forget this principle and get wrapped up in a discussion that may be completely off-mark from its original meaning. I hope that I have not come off in any sort of bad light, and if so, I am truly sorry, it was never my intent.
I understand your reservations about the backlog drive and your perspective on the purpose of GOCE. My take-away from recent experience is that it is all very subjective, that I need to follow my gut. I am not all that interested in the competition of earning barn stars or any other notoriety. I agree with you on the requests for FAC and GA, short deadlines are not typically effective, especially when I don't normally have the available time. You may have noticed the Quicksilver FAC review had expired before I made any real progress for this reason. That one was a real interesting challenge that can only benefit by further contribution by other editors. My focus is becoming defined by the more comprehensive (or holistic) approach that merges copy editing and content development. I find it very hard to do one while ignoring the other. This is how I can best make contributions to Wikipedia. And believe me, I will be very selective about responding to short deadline requests!
Much appreciated. dtgriffith ( talk) 04:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
On behalf of the coordinator of the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
Backlog elimination drive for May 2010,
ɳorɑfʈ
Talk!, I would like to thank you for your active participation in the Drive.
I am writing to inform you that we have introduced additional Guild of Copy Editors' Gold Star Awards for the drive. To qualify, you will need to add an asterisk to all the full copyedits you have completed from the Requests page. More information can be found in the awards section of the Drive. If you have any questions, please post them to the Drive's talk page. Once again, thank you for participating, and we look forward to a meaningful drop in the numbers due to your hard work and efforts. |
Hey, TK, I finally got around to addressing the comments you made at FAC. [2] So whaddya think? Is it now ready to resubmit for FAC? I ask because your comments were one of the reasons it didn't pass, so I wanted your opinion before I move forward. Not that it's your fault, though; I got busy and didn't address them in time. Thanks for your review, though--anything to make the article better, doncha know. -- Christine ( talk) 04:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, TK! User:EeepEeep keeps trying to put a list of enemies on his talk page and he lists you as one of these so-called "intentionally destructive" editors. Here's a diff: [3]. Later, • Cinch Bug • 22:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hadley Richardson, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 16:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | ||
This Copyeditor's Barnstar is a sign of my gratitude for your copy-editing of Codex Vaticanus. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 12:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC) |
It was good piece of work. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 12:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks! It was a fun project, and one that I really enjoyed researching; I'm glad you liked reading it. :) Speaking of FAs, I intend to re-read Hemingway within the next several days, but I haven't quite found the time for it yet. When I do, I'll comment on the FAC. As for userboxes, no worries; I "stole" all of mine from various other user pages, except maybe the polar bear one; I think I actively looked for that at WP:USERBOX. María ( habla con migo) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Cropped, auto-white balance, and choice of auto-equalize/auto-color enhance in GIMP. Smallman12q ( talk) 01:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
-- Cmagha ( talk) 01:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Cmagha; wanted to thank you for asking if the Irving Literary Society was an academic paper requiring preservation. The entire AfD was a fiasco; many of us were new to the editing process, and we pretty much botched that effort. There were about six undergraduates involved. They have recovered from the experience. I am a mentor to them; the article is now on my User page, as we rework it. Again, thanks for your concern.
The Barnstar of High Culture | ||
Congratulations! Truthkeeper88 for all of your hard work in bringing Ernest Hemingway as far as you did, all the way to FA. I am pleased to have helped. Modernist ( talk) 03:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for the barnstar and for your early encouragement, giving me confidence to keep going!
Truthkeeper88 (
talk)
11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The Flaming Joel-wiki
I award this Flaming Joel-wiki to Truthkeeper88 for their great efforts in updating one of Billy Joel's recommended core articles. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
A Barnstar for all the great work you have done to solve whatever problems with articles that I raise Sadads ( talk) 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC) |
Really, you seem to be everywhere I go, and help solve lots of mistakes and issues which I raise. Sadads ( talk) 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88! Having more time now, I put the article up at FLC. Comments are going to appear here. bamse ( talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Metabaronic ( talk) 06:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
What about the Importance? Isn't a Nebula winner and Hugo nominee significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iceman87 ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I made a whole lot of changes and responded to your comments. ( Sugar Bear ( talk) 00:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC))
Can I start editing the Mau Mau article now? I can make a pretty decent job of it, I've read a lot about Mau Mau and I'm unemployed at the moment! Scott's given up, I destroyed him on the Discussion page, see for yourself. Sh33pl0re ( talk) 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I nominated National Treasures of Japan at WP:FAC. The comment/suggestions page is this one. Let's see what happens... bamse ( talk) 14:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Quick question: Do you prefer US or UK spelling? bamse ( talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to use this script for the US->UK conversion, but need to figure out how to use it. Another quick question: User:Nikkimaria had some issues with image stacking in the "categories" section. Do you think it is possible to fix that, or would it be better if I just removed all those images? bamse ( talk) 16:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Re new edits:
bamse ( talk) 08:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I am reading through the whole article now. Comments follow...
Done. Nothing more to critizise. Feel free to leave a note that copy-editing is done. bamse ( talk) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Checked your recent (7) edits and all looks fine. BTW, do you see any -or/-our issues as suggested in the review? I don't. bamse ( talk) 16:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Smallman12q ( talk) 01:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Done it myself not so long ago, can't remember which AfD though. TFOWR propaganda 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
On May 27, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Dragon (Beowulf), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Truthkeeper88, you are really doing a great job on the articles you write. Both The Dragon (Beowulf) and Edmund Evans are written very well. I wish I were able to write as you are. Please feel absolutely free to ask me, if you need some help with uploading more images. Best wishes.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Quick reply to The Rambling Man's comment, impressive! Thanks. bamse ( talk) 20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
...you this question, too. I'm guessing you don't mind too much, but I'm curious. (And I'm trying to avoid anything too serious for the next several days, so may as well catch up on the non-serious stuff...!) TFOWR idle vapourings 11:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm always interested, you should know that by now! TFOWR idle vapourings 17:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Collapsed a lengthyish essay, to keep your talk page scrollable...
|
---|
I think some of the hostility towards admins is justified. Don't get me wrong - some of it is nonsense. I worked with two editors in dispute; both editors were blocked by the same admin, the second editor cried "admin abuse, bias, obvious bias because admin is X [they're not]" etc. That's obvious nonsense. But some of it justified. Admins should be the same as every other editor, just with a few extra tools. But one of those tools is the power to block users. And other admins. And to make matters worse, there's clearly a belief (one I share, if I'm honest) that "editors-in-good-standing" (by which I mean: the ones we encounter everyday, doing all that work, etc) should get preferential treatment. The community puts up with our eccentricities because we're a net-positive. So Joe IP says "fucking grammar police" and gets blocked. An admin says "fucking grammar police" and we all laugh. Except a few editors (in good standing) who don't understand the hypocrisy. Another time an admin says "fucking grammar police" and is blocked, and we all celebrate. Except a few editors (in good standing) who don't understand the hypocrisy. And this debate is played out all over - from civility to inclusionism/deletionism, from copyright to copy-editing. I have a huge amount of faith in "the community" (all of us, from the IP, through the non-autoconfirmed but newly registered and enthusiastic editor, to the seasoned editor), and I think in the long run we'll solve the problems we have now (and find new problems...!) However, that does mean that we need to consider how to solve our problems. I don't know what the answer is to hostility towards admins, or "unfair blocks" by "bad admins". I had a coversation recently about RfA in general, and WP:RECALL in particular. Firstly, I'd definitely want to be open to recall - if the community decided that I was fit to have additional tools, I'd want the same community to be able to hold me to account. However, I don't know if this is necessarily the solution (you'll appreciate that my belief in recall is fairly closely tied to my beliefs in general - black cat and all that). I can totally see recall being abused, and getting the balance right between being accountable and creating unnecessary disruption is hard. My argument at WT:RFA was largely that the community fixes the problem organically: if the community decides that recall is good, over time more and more admins get appointed who are recallable. You'll note, though, that that doesn't solve anything today ;-) Apologies for the essay, you'll appreciate that I've been thinking about this stuff quite a lot recently (you'd think I'd have some answers by now, though, wouldn't you ;-) Anyway, thanks for your thoughts, even though I'm still going ahead with the RfA (though you'd be forgiven for thinking that I'm not, given that I still haven't answered any questions, or accepted... must get back to sandbox...!) |
Here's my long response:
Collapsed a lengthyish essay in response to lengthyish essay above.
|
---|
Blocked editors will be hostile, but that's different than some of the other stuff I've watched/read recently. A good example is our nightmare experience last summer. It should not have taken so long for that editor to be indeffed (and maybe now it would happen more quickly), and once blocked the already scary level of hostility and incivility was amplified. Furthermore, I think a comment like this is much more uncivil than the run-of-the-mill "fuck off, leave me alone" stuff that goes on all the time. The first should not be ignored because it's from a sock of a problem editor; the second is harmless. I agree that admins should be regular editors with more tools, but some take it more seriously, and that's where the disconnect is created. You, with your cat-like dispostion (black cat and all), will do well as an admin, but I think it must be very difficult not to choose sides/tribes, so at times, I suspect you'll be torn. I strongly agree that established editors have to have some leeway. After all, we're building an encyclopedia and it's bloody hard. (I've spent the last few days learning about Victorian printing techniques and then, slowly edit by edit, building an article.) I'm okay at this, but some people are spectacular and should simply be left alone to do what they do best. Writing is hard and lonely work - this is a great writing and learning community, but we have to come to terms with the fact that those who can do the heavy lifting might not want to be interrupted with petty bullshit while they're working - or the flipside is that it's too easy to be sidetracked and pulled into the dramah, easier than writing articles. WP:RECALL is a good idea in theory, but can be gamed. If someone doesn't like what you've done then they call ask for a recall. What will be necessary is a WP:Rfr (request for recall) and have the community decide. I actually did think that you hadn't fully decided because I hadn't seen any action on the blue-ink page yet—so I thought it was okay to butt in. Obviously you have my full support. We need people like you, who are willing to work on policy and understand the concept of community (and the concept of herding cats!) |
It was all a ploy to get you into your sandbox! Truthkeeper88 ( talk) 20:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to make a few changes. For example, I think it very unlikely that he had a skull fracture and CSF leak after his first plane crash-- the one everybody hiked out of and took a boat from. Mary had some broken ribs, but had EH suffered that bad a head wound I think he'd have had far worse problems getting out of the bush. Almost all his significant injuries happened in the second crash, I think. I have the Baker bio on order, but you might check it, as well as ITS source. I think there's been some medical error, here, by somebody. S B H arris 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Could you have a quick look at bullet points 2 and 4 of Jujutacular's comments here. The sentence: "Most entries (6) are located in the Tokyo National Museum." is meant to say that out of all the locations mentioned in the table (i.e., in the "present location" column), the Tokyo National Museum is appears most often. Or expressed differently: "There is no location with more archaeological national treasures than the TNM." bamse ( talk) 16:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
You should add a Fair Use Rationale - here is a link [5] to a picture of Mark Rothko that Tyrenius added today with a copyright and Fair Use explanation. You might use this as an example for the image of Pound and his mother... Modernist ( talk) 21:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the infobox, as its 'influenced by' and 'influence on' sects were uncited and listy and specualtive. Any objection if I spin out the "Selected works" BIT to a seperate article with a main: link on this bio page. Ceoil ( talk) 22:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The Old School League of Copyeditors Barnstar | |
For your copyediting efforts during the May 2010 Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive, editing 23 articles with a combined total of 26,301 words, I hereby award you this Old School League of Copyeditors Barnstar. Congratulations and thank you for all your hard work! -- Diannaa TALK 03:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks for uploading File:Sharon Kay Penman.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page.
Thank you.
DASHBot (
talk)
05:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if somebody didn't screw up on the date of this photo, which would make Patrick 18.5 years old and Gregory 15. Does that look like a 15 yo boy to you? He looks about 10 or no more than 12. I think this is WW II photo taken by Marty Gellhorn, but can't prove it. It's in the JFK collection, uploaded by you-- do you know anything about it? S B H arris 18:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The short answer is that I have no answer and doubt that one could be obtained on EH even if he got into a time machine in 1960 and went forward 50 years, to now, for treatment. There are no lab or objective tests for bipolar disorder, even now. The only way to obtain such answers would be to dry him out thoroughly, to see what was "left" after a fairly long sober period. And of course he probably would not cooperate, just as he didn't at the Mayo, doing whatever he had to, and looking as good as he needed to, to be able to get out and drink again (or kill himself). Such is the very nature of severe alcoholism. Perhaps he could have been kept more comfortable with some modern alcohol replacement; there is a terrible fight in the treatment community whether to use these things or not, past the stage where they're needed to stop the DT's. And the psychiatrists fight the other dogs for inpatient days for treatment of people who have substance-dependancy, vs that plus (perhaps) some other mental illness. A trendy thing. For an example, see: [7].
Simple severe long-standing alcoholism is the "Ockam's razor" diagnosis for EH. Alcoholics are all depressed, and have a very high rate of suicide. They all feel good and jolly when drinking, and they all have anhedonia and are mean, depressed, paranoid, and even suicidal when not. They cannot do creative work when drunk, and certainly not when sober, so they get what they can done, in the halfway state, and it's often not very good (though patches can be edited together). Writers, for obvious reasons, survive in this existence, better than people with fixed-hour jobs. All the male US Nobel lit laureates have been lushes to a great extent, though EH was probably the worst. F. Scott Fitzgerald might have won the Nobel, too, if he hadn't succumbed to drink.
The cycle between drunk and non-drunk looks a lot like bipolar disease, and you simply cannot tell one from the other in a person who became alcohol-dependent long before he developed mood swings, and who won't stop drinking entirely long enough to see if they persist over long adaption to sobriety. And of course there's a huge chicken-egg relationship between the two problems.
As for hemochromatosis, it can cause diabetes, and even some mental problems, but isn't a common cause of either diabetes of mental problems, even in people who certainly have it. It's certainly exacerbated by alcohol, if a person has one of several genes for it. It's entirely possible EH had it, but it wasn't doing much to him. Today there are genetic tests but there was no test in 1960 but a liver biopsy. There was a treatment (iron depletion by blood letting) but it takes months, often years, and I have no record that anybody tried in EH (the biggest reason to treat the disease is so that suffers don't get liver cancer, actually). His mental symptoms are far more likely to have been caused by alcohol and ECT (shock therapy) which today nobody would do on an alcoholic until they'd been dried out (and of course treated with the antidepressants that didn't exist in 1960-- but even absent them, nobody would shock an alcoholic who'd recently been drinking). Again, there's no point in treating ANY mental disease by ANY means in a substance-abuser, until they are sober (meaning many months, even a year or two, without the drug they're dependent on). The reasons are: 1) treatment doesn't work and 2) diagnosis is always confused and unreliable.
I suppose my conclusion is that no psychiatrist could differentiate these things today based on what I know of EH's history, so it's pretty certain that while EH was drinking (and he never stopped) it's impossible to imagine that anybody could make a half-way reliable diagnosis in 1960. EH began binge-drinking nearly continuously after finishing Bell Tolls about 1940, as I read it. So you'd have to have a very, very clear bipolar picture before that, to even guess that he might have had it as a separate and early problem from alcohol. And I really don't see much evidence of it in his bios. What do you think? While married to Hadley and Pauline, I have the impression of a man in quite good physical and mental health. And of course he did his best writing then, also. After that, it was fighting the terrible effects of alcohol and its treatment, to his last moment. If I can fault the Mayo, it is in their not recognizing their primary problem. I think they blew it. But then, they hadn't read the bios that we have, had they? And also, alcoholics are wiley, and intelligent and rich alcoholics even wiley-er. The Mayo would have had to have a dedicated "Betty Ford Center" to even have had a chance with EH, and of course they did not. S B H arris 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the
help page).