Archives
2006 2011 2012 2013 2014

16 May 2024
News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators? Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24 In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure Comix: Generations Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Little Sammy Sneeze you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curly Turkey, I noticed 4 or 5 days ago that you opened a review page for an article that I had nominated (Hidden Treasures (EP)), however, in the days since, I have heard nothing from you regarding the review or the article. Were you planning on communicating with me in any manor regarding this?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I've been waiting for you to say you've been through the article to make sure everything's got an online cite. Have you done that? Once you have, I can continue. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point I have been getting at is that I generally expect a degree of communication during these things, regardless of the content, or lack thereof, of the article in question. Can't say I've seen that here. Heck, you've have talked to Retrohead more about the article when he wasn't the one who nominated it! (No disrespect meant to you Retro). Additionally, I had left a few comments and made a few fixes (though definitely not everything wrong with the article) on the article, had you bothered to check. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L1A1 FAL: Sorry about that. After your initial comments, I assumed you'd notify me when you got everything sourced, or at least after you'd dealt with those "Will look into"s—especially given that's exactly what I said in the opening to the review. Given how much hadn't been sourced, I assumed there'd be major enough changes to the content that I thought it would be best to wait until that was done before finishing the review. I contacted Retrohead because (a) he contacted me first and (b) I knew he had access to sources since he'd done the Megadeth FA. With no activity on the review page, it doen't show up on my watchlist to remind me to return. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. So its just a misunderstanding then. Sorry for coming across in an irritated manor. I've had increasingly bad interactions with other editors and reviewers, and as a result I take exception to stuff increasingly easily anymore. I'm frustrated almost to the point of leaving to be honest. Back on topic, I assumed you had been keeping an eye on the review page, no big deal though. Probably not going to get to it tonight, but I'll revisit the so-far-listed issues on the page, fix what needs fixed and I'll get back to you shortly. As for the rest of the page, we can deal with it as it comes along.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that between myself and Retrohead, the initial issues previously pointed out have been addressed. If you could proceed to inspect the following paragraphs, that would be great--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, new stuff fixed, or at least addressed on the review page--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the two iffy sources you pointed out--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw today that you passed the article. Just wanted to say thanks for reviewing it. Take care!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curly. I just wanted to leave a note of thanks for your efforts and review at the FAC for the AACS medallions article. I noticed your correction of the 'notes' template; I'll remember the way you did it in case I need to use those in future articles.-RHM22 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Little Sammy Sneeze you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Little Sammy Sneeze for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

… about the meltdown. Holidays, house guests, a visit to the ER and FAC. What can I say? Except I'm sorry you got in the line of fire. Btw - also, I cringed when I realized I'd jumped from cr to cy right over cu when idly posting xmas greetings while waiting for a delayed flight to arrive. So - better late than never - here's hoping you and yours have a wonderful 2015! Victoria (tk) 02:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—I've been waiting for the flurry of edits to die down before returning to the FAC. Hope your January will be a bit more fun (we've got an influenza case at home, but it hasn't got to me ... yet ...). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It hit me unexpectedly hard at a bad time, but as they say, stuff happens. Anyway, I finally got a chance to review my files and think I'm finally finished at the FAC. Stay healthy! Victoria (tk) 02:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix this article? Coffee jelly. And Tokyo Banana too Black Thunder (chocolate bar) looks fine though.- Hafspajen (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean copyedit, or do you want me to hunt down sources? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Do you eat this stuff? Hafspajen (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like octopus—it's so chewy. The rest of my family eats it frequently. I'll see what I can do, but I honestly don't know where I'd start. I can't believe someone found enough sources to make Black Thunder a GA. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... perhaps it's not even Japanese in the first place, and just happens to be popular there (my wife has some once in a while—I don't drink coffee, let alone eat it). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Plymouth Rock Coffee Jelly Recipes (1920) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noo, not a GA. Do you eat it raw? Hafspajen (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Octopus? I've seen on TV where people ate it live (!!!), but I don't think it's normally eaten raw. It's definitely cooked in takoyaki (the "yaki" means "cooked"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah. So it's not sushi. And your sign you have ? Hafspajen (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean sashimi. Sushi doesn't require raw fish—sometimes the fish is cooked (like with anago), and even more often there's no fishi in it at all (just vegetables or whatever). I'm on the fence with Je suis Charlie. At the moment, I think the two articles should be merged (rather than deleting one). Only time will tell if it really merits its own article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you Japanese. I thought shushi was raw fish. Hafspajen (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Curly Turkey. Hafspajen (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC) thumb|Wild Turkey.[reply]

[1] Hafspajen (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does that Gilbert Jordan one have something to do with April Fool's Day? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe ... Curly, you were supposed to nominate that turkey as a featured pic, preferably before is going down in the drain in the archives or you get blocked on more Jesus Charlie issues. I f you have a second free, maybe you could try? Do you need help? Hafspajen (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You put this: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:1 Wild Turkey.jpg in the box called Create new nominations, than fill in. It's a home run. Hafspajen (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh!—sorry, I didn't understand when you gave me that link. I thought it meant you were going to nominate it. I'll do that now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is very good. Now you have to go this page Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates ... and add it - the title, in curly brackets, to the other ones - so people can start voting on it ..too. Hafspajen (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Argh—like in FAC, I should have known. Done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why you deleted the RS-supported fact that she was identified as a suspect, here? Nor can I tell from your edit summary why you did so. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: The word "suspect" may not appear, but if "possible accomplice of Coulibaly, and is being sought by French police" doesn't make that clear, then Jesus Christ! If it makes you feel better, change "possible" to "suspected". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A "person of interest" and the like may be a possible accomplice who is sought by the police; they may be someone "involved" in a criminal investigation who is not suspected of committing the crime by the police. A "suspect" is a significantly higher level. It is a known person who the police have put into the category of people they officially suspect have considered a crime. They are different things. When you delete suspect, you delete something very material, in a section about the person. Epeefleche (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's immaterial now as I've restored the word "suspected", but when someone is sought as a possible accomplice to a crime there's no way to interpret that but as "suspect". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you think this was an improvement. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "is a suspect" is different from the non-technical "is suspected." It has a technical meaning. Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a difference that matters in the context? It someone is being sought as an accomplice to a crime, is there a context in which that does not carry the technical meaning of "suspect"? This article isn't a court document, remember—we want it to be as readable as possible. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Certainly. Once can be "suspected" by the police, without having been declared by the police a (in her case, an "armed and dangerous" ...) suspect. We want it to be both readable and accurate and also to convey precisely, not in a vague way. Everybody suspected by the police is not a police-designated "suspect." The verbiage of The Independent is both readable and precise: "police named her as an "armed and dangerous" suspect". Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's finer a distinction than I'm able to comprehend, but I'll take your word for it. I'm likely not alone in finding that the wording appears redundant. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This may help. Every person who is accused of something at a trial and defends themselves is not a defendant -- the Plaintiff could be accused of something. Every person who the FBI very much wants is not an FBI Most Wanted. Etc. Epeefleche (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please point out where in the manual of style that the lede not to be considered part of the article. Thanks Dolescum (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dolescum: The whole reason the lead is not required to have citations is because those citations must be in the body. Further, the lead is a summary (per MOS:LEAD) of the body—if you include something that in the summary that's not the thing being summarized then it's not a summary. This is also why the User:Ucucha/duplinks script doesn't register a link as a duplink when it appears for the first time in the body even though it already appears in the lead (install the script and then try it on, say, Ukiyo-e—you'll notice that Edo period appears once in the lead and again in the body, yet doesn't get highlighted as a duplink).

Need any more evidence? This is very, very well established, so I trust you'll stop with the reverts. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link isn't my main reason for reverting CT, it's WP:SAWW. Your edit means that that specific text ('Islamic prophet') is now in the article twice after I specifically cleaned it up earlier. Note the policy: Once per article. Now are you going to keep reverting that text back into the article? Dolescum (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read WP:SAWW, and you're obviously misreading the spirit of the letter. The lead is a stand-alone summary of the article—you cannot summarize something that is not in the body of text being summarized. Notice WP:SAWW does not say "Once per article"—it says "when it is the first reference in an article". The article itself being the body, of which the lead is a stand-alone summary. Just think of how ridiculous this would be—a "Background" section detailing the offense of depicting Muhammad—the central inciting incident for the attack—but that does not once bother to state who this "Muhammad" guy is? Please take a moment to ponder this before any further hairsplitting. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the lede is a summary of the rest of the article, but it is also an introduction (as the relevant MOS page states) and itself a part of that article. As an introduction, it's obvious that it's the location to introduce users to who Muhammad is, given that the dude is mentioned there. I don't think I'm the one misreading things here, CT. Dolescum (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you simply ignored what I wrote? Or you seriously believe the "Background" section should just skip out on telling the reader who the central character in the controversy actually was? Perhaps we should leave the number of dead or the names of the shooters out of the body as well---it's all redundant once it's mentioned in the lead! Ditto the dates and locations of the attacks ... Try bringing it up with the MoS people and see if any of them take your WikiLawyering seriously. You're damaging the body by removing a key background detail. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read what you wrote. I think you're wrong. Introduction via the lede will have already framed which Muhammad is under discussion. There is no need to repeatedly reframe the context for readers. I also note I'm not the only editor to have removed this text]. Dolescum (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So you simply refuse to address how a summary could summarize something that doesn't exist in the text behind summarized? Right, right, right: WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Oh, and "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Unless it's trivial (pronunciation keys, alternate spellings, etc), we simply don't put things in the lead that aren't in the article. Who Muhammad was is a key detail in the background of the article. I mean, Jesus Christ: "There is no need to repeatedly reframe the context for readers"—?!? Just what do you think the entire lead is, then? These details are framed once—in the body—and are summarized in the lead. You're not seriously going to dispute that, are you? If you are, your dispute is with Wikipedia, not me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Take it up at the talk page. I have. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm sorry you're frustrated with me. I wish there was a way to send you cake over the internet by way of thanks for your civility. Dolescum (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have commented at this. I think as of now all the points on all the reviews are responded to, and either settled or awaiting a response from the reviewer (mostly the former), so you may want to revisit it. I'm sorry some of you have had to wait a while for this. There has been a lot of activity, both on this page and on the article itself, as well as the holidays. It's been great to see so many people getting involved in this. Many thanks to you and all reviewers and editors! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll definitely get back to it, but it may not be right away—I'll have to refamiliarize myself with it, and it's a fairly long article on a topic over my head. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 15:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued edits blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few Islamists is sickening. I assure you that if you keep this up you will find yourself topic-banned. Abductive (reasoning) 07:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reported, you fucking troll. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:01, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Coco (cartoonist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Parisienne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Love It to Death you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

btw - where you have put that information now, I think is good - it flows better in the story of the magazine in a way - and in a way it made me think - -of course they will make cartoons that upset this religion at this point because its more visible - in the nineteenth century they would have been just focused on the catholic church and Calvinists or whatever. and it doesn't imply anything sinister about the religion - it just joins all the other religions for the secularist left to have a go at.Sayerslle (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, thanks! Let's see if it'll stick. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor comment: Curly Turkey, I have read much of the discussions of the edit warring at this article, and I hope you will appreciate an outside editor's thoughts and advice. While I have noted you are very often on the right side of any discussion as you are an intelligent, experienced, and respected editor, you are very often aggressive and you normally fail to communicate "with a view to explicitly cooling things down" (as recommended in the "Handling of edit-warring behaviors" section of WP:EW. I believe you would fail any WP:RFA, for example, were you ever to attempt such an action, as they value this skill. In my opinion, you are respected for your accuracy, not your attitude, and it is surely possible to be respected for both. In myself, for example, I try to achieve this (but it is difficult, I know) for I have seen other editors do so. I hope you will consider these thoughts and recognise that I am not offering them in any desire to be right, but that I am offering them in kindness and thoughtfulness.

Before I go, I must of course express my shock at how satire was attacked by this terrible event. When I first heard the news, I thought immediately of the satire of both Harvey Kurtzman and Mad magazine, and I thought about how much you and I respect the publication of satire. Where satire is discussed in this article, I'm glad you are there to ensure the article gets it right. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could probably be more tactful, but I doubt it'd be any more effective with partisans who cover their ears, anyways. It's a good thing I have no aspirations towards adminship, eh? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you would be more effective with them. Everyone is a person who doesn't want to get their feelings hurt. You've been around wise people who have won your respect, despite a difference of opinion, haven't you? Well. there you go.

Hey, some wiki gossip: Our fellow editor Neelix was wikihounded to the point of resigning last week. Prhartcom (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I heard something about that on that deletion discussion (you commented there, too, didn't you?) I don't know the details. It's hard to be tactful with people when they editwar to tell you not to start an editwar. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that; those are the times when we could choose to be even more annoyed or we could choose to just laugh. Sometimes something disguised as a trial is actually life becoming more ironically humorous and bearable! On that deletion discussion there was an editor who flatly stated he disagreed with what I said but also stated he respected the way I said it. I went to his talk page and told him I respected him as well, and we found something to agree about and left each other with mutual respect. That was a win; if I have to disagree with someone, that's the kind of disagreement I strive for. Prhartcom (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those things happen. I seem to remember some friction when you and I first came across each other ... Formerip has made it clear to me, though, that he's only interested in fillibustering the discussion. We're not having a "disagreement", he's simply generating a long list of baldfaced lies. I'm going to try to reboot the converstation at Charlie Hebdo shooting with a mind to changing the tone. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Hopefully your new tone will pleasantly surprise them and lead to something positive. Of course it won't work on everyone but I'll bet it will work on some. And the others could actually have a valid point too. Yes, the details between you and I have faded but I remember with shame some friction between us and have resolved to try to never let that kind of thing happen with anyone again. I even remember letting you down in some way. You probably weren't fishing but while I am thinking about it, please accept my apology for whatever that was. I'm sure I could have handled it in a calmer way. BTW, I finally got Masterful Marks: Cartoonists Who Have Changed The World in the mail today; will start reading it now and add it to Annie later. Prhartcom (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I just got Craig Yoe's Barney Google book; I haven't gotten around to using it much on Billy DeBeck, but I probably will this weekend. One of these days I'll get my hands on Barney Google & Snuffy Smith: 75 Years of an American Legend and really finish off the article. I hope to get back to copyediting Annie this weekend, too. I'd've done it by now if it weren't for Charlie Hebdo. Normally I steer clear of political articles, and I think you can see why. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I tried, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that Abductive would first recommence his editwarring (with another claim that the "material is against the now well-established talk page consensus" that has been beaten into the rest of us) and then start pointing fingers and saying what we've added is "disgracing the article". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. I'm sorry that those editors are like that. As an interesting exercise, try to understand them. Get inside their minds and be them and try to figure out why they are like that. I think I can understand them. They are on the side of the vast majority of innocent Muslims and who can blame them. Unfortunately look where their compassion has lead: to illogical and unfair banning, unproductive and lazy refusal to offer counter proposals, and mean-spirited and immature rebellion. And that's just the dissenters going in the one direction. But understanding them is an important step: people want to be understood (you want to be understood, right?) It could lead to productivity and actually accomplishing a workable result. Try extending an olive branch. Ah well. I does seem a little hopeless at the moment. Imagine how the administrators feel. I appreciate how that one editor summed it up a few hours ago. But it really isn't that important to "win". There are lots of other areas to work on here. It's interesting to hear you talk about historic comics that I didn't know existed. There is so much out there, isn't there. Prhartcom (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you're saying, but there's a big difference between an Abductive single-mindedly trying to "set the record straight" and a FormerIP whose motivation is to stir the pot—it's not like he can pass for believing the manure he shoveled on that discussion. A "difference of opinion" that wasn't. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I honestly thought Gamebuster was going to come out against the content. 03:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right when referring to trolls, that's what they do, but even they could be motivated by a valid point sometimes. It's almost a game; treat people with the respect they crave, take the high road, and see what happens. It's exciting when it actually pays off: I believe the editor you mention was genuinely surprised when you stopped being predictably loud and started being unpredictably wise; you were not as two-dimensional as he realized he himself was behaving. Notice how he took a break to cool off and then came back with a compromise; we could all learn from that. I was glad to see you agree with his compromise, why wouldn't you, you're reasonable. Now let's get that new paragraph in the article. Prhartcom (talk) 20:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, blatant canvasing request: Could you please stop by Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests#Nonspecific date 2 and consider Supporting? Crisco 1492 and Dank have already looked at it very closely. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Prhartcom: your advice? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry about what happened. We convinced one of them to be part of a rational discussion and resolution but certainly did not convince two other hardcore editors. It's interesting what we can pick up from their writing style; their sentence structure and vocabulary is unimpressive. Here is what I have been able to pick up: M is an Algerian. He has been an editor for just over one year. He doesn't usually contribute to articles himself; he mostly only reverts material that others have written. Lately, almost the entirety of his contributions to Wikipedia are to this one Talk page. His motivation is obvious: he cares about Muslims. A is an American. He is a botanist/biologist. He has been an editor for just over five years. He touches on an impressively wide variety of Wikipedia activities. His motivation is less obvious; although he exhibits the hallmarks of a typical troll—emanating immaturity and acting the schoolyard bully—it probably stems simply from a blinding determination to always be right. He cares about no one. Other people are all fools, he says. This person is probably a huge geek.

I don't know about your stamina, but mine has exhausted. When the other person keeps saying "Nuh uh!", it's boring to repeatedly keep saying "Uh huh!" It's just not that important. What is important is that you yourself kept your head. You did not let lesser beings drag you down to their level. If you decide to walk away, you can know, as I have verified, that you would walk away with your dignity (and sanity) intact.

I have been in your position. Some were pretty difficult. Once, it was me against four others. They all "owned" the article, a BLP, and banded together to ensure the article of their hero was censored. I wanted to add some truth that had occurred in the subject's life, but they prevented it at all costs. A year later, I was able to add the information.

Cartoonists Who Changed The World is wonderful. I must admit, even though the book arrived, for some reason I did not open it until a few hours ago. It is all comics! Reading it now. Prhartcom (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. I bought an ebook version of Brian Evenson's Ed Vs. Yummy Fur, and I've barely touched it to finish off Ed the Happy Clown—one of the first articles I put serious effort into, and it's still quite far from finished. Meanwhile, I've spent the last week on anything but (not just the Charlie Hebdo stuff—I just put up Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary for GAN, and I think I'm close to doing the same for Art Spiegelman). It's a weird form of procrastination—I'm not actually putting off editing.

Frustrating situation. I know I can't report it because tehre are FormerIPs waiting in the wings to obscure things. I'm going to leave it until someone closes the RfC. There's no way an admin will close against (though they may rule "no consensus"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh—maybe the Spiegelman article's not as close as I thought. I was just trying to clean up the references and a few other things, but now that I've taken a quick look at the prose, it's gonna need a pretty thorough copyediting. It's almost all my prose, but it's as if somebody else wrote it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You have no right to remove the Template:Relevance-inline template that I've added, especially after reverting what I've deleted. Furthermore, you refuse to answer my questions. MoorNextDoor (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MoorNextDoor: Broken record time again:

• Your questions have been answered repeatedly, but YOUDIDNTHEARTHEM (again).
• You have yet to make even the pretence of demonstrating WP:SYNTH. Why? Because there has been no SYNTH, of course.
• You've been reported for your editwarring against both myself and PuffinSoc. It doesn't look good that the one supporting you is Abductive, who just got off his own 48hr block for the same thing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Love It to Death you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Love It to Death for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that there are relevant messages in those two pages. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Turkey, can you provide an audio sample about some track of the album? I don't know the procedure, but I think the article would benefit since we don't have any illustrations from this period about the band. And about the music analysis of the title track, you think Master of Puppets (song) would be more appropriate for these information?--Retrohead (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can do an audio sample, but do you have a suggestion for what would be a good one? As for the adding info---which info did you think was better for the adding article? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've thrown in an audio file. If it's not what you had in mind, I can easily whip up something else. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I haven't noticed we've got audio of that track. I'll contact you if I have something particular on mind. By the way, how's the article shaping? I still have some words to add, but so far, how does it look?--Retrohead (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't have the audio file; I just uploaded it. Give it a listen and let me know if you'd rather have it done differently.

Oh, sorry, now I understand—there was already a file. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly looks closer to comprehensive. When you're through with it, I think the lead will need a re-write to reflect what's in the body. The one thing that really sticks out at this point is it's still missing what I would consider sufficient background on both the band and thrash metal. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curly. A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see anything important that's missing, but "Having its origin in the German Expressionist movement, the typically socialist work" almost sounds like it was typically socialist due to its German Expressionist origins. I don't think the "German Expressionism" bit is important enough to keep if you wanted to drop it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, done. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:TheBookOfJimCover.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, do you own a copy of the book: Mike Edison (2011) Dirty! Dirty! Dirty! (which I see you once used as a reference in Harvey Kurtzman's Goodman Beaver) and if so, can you please consult it for references to Kurtzman's Little Annie Fanny? The book is not available online. Thanks. Prhartcom (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm ... I definitely don't have it, and I don't even remember it—though obviously I was the one who added it, since I'm the one who created the page. I wonder how I got that page reference ... maybe it was accessible on Google Books at the time, but they've since removed that access? Sorry! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, thanks anyway. It's not at any of my usual local libraries either. Maybe it's not be the kind of title that appeals to librarians. I don't really much need it anyway; I believe my sourcing is now complete for that article. BTW, I scanned and wish I could show you portions of large panel Elder drew for Annie's 20th birthday party showing Kurtzman and Elder acting up in the corner, and with Hef in the middle saying "More nudity!" (and his executive editor turning around and saying, "More nudity!"). Prhartcom (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there no forum where you could post it, maybe? I get the feeling that Dark Horse will be reprinting those Annie books. I don't have a source saying so out loud, but it looks like the plan is to reprint the three Kurtzman books that Kitchen Sink did in the '80s (Goodman Beaver, Hey Look!, and Jungle Book), and since they already have the rights to Annie (and Kitchen was involved with those), I'd be surprised if they didn't follow up with deluxe new Annie editions. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Little Annie Fanny is done for now and ready to get in line at GAN. I'm interested to hear your comments. I'm very proud to have contributed to the Harvey Kurtzman comics universe. Prhartcom (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It'll be a nice addition. One thing, though: I don't think the File:Annie-Fanny.png image contributes anything to the article that you can't get from the other two images of her, so it may fail the threshold of what constitutes Fair Use; on top of that, it's causing sandwiching with the infobox. I'd drop it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! And as for the image, I was afraid of that; I apparently knew that already. But that leaves a big blank spot though. What is this sandwiching? I don't see it; must not have the same browser or something as you. Prhartcom (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandwiching is where text flows between two images. It can be problematic on small screens. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, big screens you mean. When I maximize and increase resolution I see it. Prhartcom (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it happens more often on big screens, but it's usually only a problem on small screens, where, if it happens, it can make the text hard to read. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the usual copy editing, it always helps to have a second pair of eyes. As for this edit, a quote won't go over well in a caption? Oh and I meant to ask earlier, about the first line in this edit; I like to start my section with a pleasant introduction of some sort before getting right into it; is there really a problem with this sentence; perhaps it just needs to be rewritten instead of removed, and if so what would you suggest? Prhartcom (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean; another caption in this article has a quote, but it is attributed in that caption. This one is attributed in the article body, and I had assumed that was enough. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the first one: unattributed quotations are always a no-no. In this case, I don't think it's a good quote, anyways: it's someone's subjective opinion, but comes across as a statement of fact. It's the kind of quote that's appropriate in the context of a section that puts it in context along with other opinions, but singling it out like that gives it undue weight.

As to the second one, it's the kind of thing you'd commonly see in, say, magazine writing, but isn't really appropriate in an encyclopaedia—it's saying in many words what can be said in few. It's one thing to prefer a "zest"-y (but factual) wording to a flat one, but it's another thing to append "zest" to the text (even if factual). The sentence doesn't add any information to the article as the facts it contains are implied but what follows. It's not the kind of thing that would kill the article's chances at GA, but it's the kind of thing you'll find copyeditors nuking. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that explanation. I do try, after valiantly trying to achieve every requirement for encyclopedic writing, to take it one step further within limits and try to bring some sort of feeling to my writing, especially in the first and last sentence of a paragraph or section. I have succeeded at this in the past but I have also missed the mark, as you can see. Perhaps I will try to add some sort of introductory sentence later and run the sentence by you. I really do appreciate that feedback. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A rule of thumb is: if you can cut out a word without losing readability, then you probably should. Encyclopaedic writing doesn't really lend itself to much "zest", so I'm proud of myself when I can sneak in the odd "vast voids which engorge themselves on the drowning bodies", but that's not really what encyclopaedic writing is about: it's about getting information across to readers succintly and clearly. The twists in the writing can't be at the expense of succintness and clarity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What a valiant effort you have attempted with the Comics article. I can think of no one better to bring such an intimidatingly large subject to GA and then probably FA. Good luck with it. Prhartcom (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd love to see that at FA, but I'm not sure. It was a particularly difficult article to put together, because all the sources are garbage. Well, not all, but the ones that aren't garbage are limited in scope (Gabilliet's is rigorous and excellent—but only comprehensive as a historical perspective on American comics). Comics "scholarship" is an embarrassment—there are still comics "scholars" who claim straightfacedly that comics is an American invention. I feel like actually producing an FA-quality article on the subject would amount to borderline OR—because the "reliable sources" simply aren't reliable. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Prhartcom, the image of Hefner is going into the references section. That's likely to cause trouble in reviews. Have you considered using a crop of that image, and the {{Multiple image}} template? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to crop it; thank-you Crisco 1492 for the suggestion. I assume you mean a head shot cropped from the original, positioned so as not to interfere with he references section, uploaded into Commons as a new filename, referring in the new description to the original image. I didn't know that an image shouldn't interfere with the references section or that it would be called out in a review. Now, as for the Multiple image template, no, I haven't ever tried it but I'm sure I could, and how would it help here? Prhartcom (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You could have Hefner and Kurtzman side-by-side, which would mean no white space issues, and you wouldn't have to lose one of the images. The issue with images near the references section is the amount of whitespace it leaves; rather unattractive. I don't think we actually have codified any policies or guidelines about it (WP:WHITE is a help page), but if you can avoid it, why not? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For collectors only:

• Playboy December 1957 Harvey Kurtzman
• Harvey Kurtzman's signed copy of Fun & Games
• Gay Comics
• Willie Comics
• Aces High

Just for fun. Prhartcom (talk) 05:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta grab a copy of the third one, just to find out what hunk off-page caught the attention of that boy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redhead. Also fun:

• Early Kurtzman incl. Tessie the Typist
• The Masters of Comic Book Art (documentary, 1987)

Prhartcom (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Turkey, I need some copyediting help of yours on Tomislav Kezarovski. Judgind by your "Je sius Charlie" tag on the top, you'll be interested in this one. Kezarovski is the only imprisoned journalist in Europe for a published article in a magazine (ironically, he is from my country).--Retrohead (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can give it a ce, but the sourcing has serious issues that need to be dealt with. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll provide sources, not a problem. If the English ones don't cover the entire case, I can use the Macedonian, which are overflowing with information. And thanks for the help, it's really appreciated.--Retrohead (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a mix of DMY and MDY dates—I settled on DMY, but feel free to change it if you think MDY is more appropriate. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. The prose really wasn't too bad, but's it's a pretty unbalanced article—it's about virtually nothing but the arrest rather than the man himself. Hopefully you can flesh it out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrohead: Ooh—I'm not sure that cartoon will be found acceptable under the fair use rules. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, I can not credit the author because he is unknown, but whoever he is, I don't think he would mind using his work. I forgot to mention in the article, but that painting was a "gift" for the government, and kind of symbolizes the demonstrations.--Retrohead (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can guarantee you that kind of thing will not go over well—not only is it a legal issue, but the cartoon isn't even mentioned in the article, so it would not qualify as Fair Use. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. On the positive side, his punishment was abolished. Now we wait the English-language media to report it, so we can update the article.--Retrohead (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharaku, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phaidon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Sharaku page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I didn't create it or add any content—just did some minor copyediting—but if someone wants to throw some credit my way, I'll eat it up. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Curly, I'm finally getting down to working on the article for Tsugaru-jamisen. Were/are you still able to talk to your neighbor about obtaining a clip for demonstrative purposes? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I totally forgot about that—rather, I thought I'd run into the guy and that would jog my memory, but I never did run into him. I'll have to get on it. Even if I can't get one of him, I imagine I should be able to get one somewhere. There's a shop that sells shamisens etc not far from where I work, for example (and actually, that might be a better place to ask...). Keep on my case and you'll get your video. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fine, thanks for the update. We've both been busy with other stuff. I'll send a reminder your way in a week or so. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I JethroBT: Hey, sorry, I still haven't done this—next week, though, I'll be having a slow week both in terms of work and school, so I should have no excuse to put it off then. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the John Wilson Bengough page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey (and anyone else who is talk page stalking), here are two grammar questions. Like you, I'm pretty good at grammar, but I am wondering about these; I haven't found the answers yet, only a gut feeling. Do you know?

1. Do we need the word "that" for this sentence, and is there a rule? "The person stated the thing was something" or "The person stated that the thing was something"
   • In the case of "stated" and "said", if the object is a direct quotation, then you cannot use "that":

     Robert said, "It's only lines on paper, folks!"

   • If it's otherwise paraphrased, then "that" is prepended to it, although English being English, the "that" may be only implied:

     Robert said [that] it was only lines on paper. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Regarding your first bullet above: I tried to choose a sentence that would allow you to focus on what I was asking (Do I insert the word "that", or not?) and failed completely, as you thought that I was asking about MOS:QUOTE, which is way off the subject. Here is my question again; which of the two is correct: "He showed us the ring he purchased" or "He showed us the ring that he purchased"? Here it is again, which of the two is correct: "She decided he was right" or "She decided that he was right"? My gut feeling is the latter is correct in both cases. What do you think? Perhaps both the former and the latter are correct in both cases because the former is simply implying the word "that"; perhaps grammar rules allow either. Is this what you were trying to say in your second bullet above? If they're both correct, I'm just going to always insert the "that" as my gut tells me doing so is more acurate. Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, I thought I'd made it clear: a direct quotation is the direct object of "said" or "stated", in which case you cannot use "that". In the other examples you've given, both are correct, but the ones with "that" are "more correct"—the "that" can be dropped but is implied. So the sentences should be read as "He showed us the ring [that] he purchased" and "She decided [that] he was right". You can drop the word "that" in these cases but it remains ghost-like in the sentence. It's a peculiar feature of English. Do you speak Spanish or French? It's easier to understand if you do (those are languages in which you cannot drop the "that", so examples in those languages make it clear in English where a "that" has been dropped and where there was no "that" in the first place). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   (I have known for a long time that we can't mess with quotations and I was never asking anything about them.) Thanks! I understand now, you have answered my question about the "that", actually, you confirmed that I was restating your explanation correctly, that both cases are correct, but that using the word "that" is more correct. Thanks again; I have been copy editing other editor's work lately and this kept coming up (they kept leaving the "that" out) and I knew you would have this knowledge. Yes, I did learn both of those languages in school at one point but I don't get to practice them any more, and hadn't thought about using their (more straightforward) grammar to try to answer my original question; you're right, that also helps, thanks. (My wife speaks fairly fluent French, I'm not that good.) Prhartcom (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   When I was talking about direct quotations, I meant it from a grammatical perspective rather than a MoS one. Maybe I was misunderstanding you: I keep seeing "So-and-so said that 'I think it sucks'" kind of writing, which is grammatically wrong (and grates against my ears). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Where does the "only" and the "still" go in these sentences, and is there a rule? "The thing was only noticed when" or "The thing was noticed only when". The other one: "He still was not suspected of doing the thing" or "He was still not suspected of doing the thing"
   • In the first example, I feel like "only" should go before "when" [so the latter case is correct]—if you drop "when" [from the first case] you get "The thing was only noticed" [so it is wrong]. You're not trying to emphasize the mere-ness of the noticing, but that it happened "only when" [as in the second case, which is right]. This is a very subtle thing in most cases, and of course in coversation both sentences will be parsed the same way by most listeners.
   • In the second example, I don't think it matters. I can think of ways you could intend its placement to have a different nuance, but I think such shades of nuance almost certainly would not be picked up by even a careful reader. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Please bear with me: I have inserted some additional explanation in brackets directly into to your statement on the first example in order to attempt to clarify what you are saying. Did I get it right? And I understand what you are saying in your statement on the second example. That helps; thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   The simple answer is "yes". I don't think it's so much a "right vs wrong" thing as much as a "more right" kind of thing. "The thing was only noticed when" and "The thing was noticed only when" will be parsed identically in conversation, so it really comes down to hairsplitting (as a writer you should be prepared to split such hairs, though). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank-you for confirming that. This was one that I really struggled with and didn't really have a gut feeling about which case was "right", but I see now: simply try to isolate the phrase as you did, e.g. "only when", and it became clearer. Prhartcom (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- since you did the GA review for Strange Stories, would you mind commenting at User talk:TwomblyArt? A user has removed some cited information on the grounds that it's POV; I'd appreciate a third opinion. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. It definitely should not be removed from the body (it's quoted, attributed, and cited), but it's perhaps inappropriate for the image caption (WP:UNDUE—as it's the only image in the article, it draws undue attention to the craptacularity of the covers). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Turkey, can you upload File:Metallica - Welcome Home (Sanitarium).ogg? Chose yourself which portion best fits the prose from the draft and the article.--Retrohead (talk) 23:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but give me a couple of days. I'll have to do it when everyone's out of the house—all my FLACs are on the family desktop, and nobody but me will tolerate thrash in the house. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the AfD you have put "Oppose", but aren't these supposed to be either "Keep" or "Delete"? I think your meaning is obvious, but well, just pointing it out... Imaginatorium (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoever closes it it supposed to read through the comments and decide on a consensus and not count !votes, so it shouldn't matter. Doubly, it won't matter as the nomination is obvious trolling and will be closed regardless because of it. I'll try to stick to proper protocol in the future. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 14:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoorNextDoor (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, that looks really credible from a guy who has 5RRed against two editors and refuses even to try to build a consensus. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

{{unblock}}

• Curly and I sometimes agree, and sometimes disagree. But I do think it's correct that Curly is hardworking. And note that somehow, despite 36,000 edits, sometimes in contentious areas, Curly had not been blocked before. A rate of one block (or fewer) per 36,000 edits in such areas suggests to me an editor who seeks to comply with the rules. I support a shortening of the block to either time served or 24 hours. Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Not exactly a message that demonstrated his good faith in the first place, but the fact that MoorNextDoor has removed his promise to stop reverting things in the article (as "irrelevant") suggests perhaps he'll be digging in his heels. As he's assured himself of "being right", obviously there's no need to discuss things? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome back after your block. PhilKnight (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Playboy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yummy Fur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like Niceguyedc fixed this up. How nice! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, I don't want to wait out my block to see this taken care of—

Can someone please correct ISIL beheading incidents#Haruna Yukawa where it calls him^[a] an "aid worker"—Yukawa was nothing like and "aid worker", and none of the four sources claim he was: he was war-obsessed and was trying to set up a private military contracting company. That's actually in the sources, so you don't have to track anything down to fix it. Thanks in advance! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, DAJF, for doing this. One thing: I don't think he was a "self-proclaimed" military contractor—my understanding was that he was pursuing setting up such a business—the BBC source used words it: "Haruna Yukawa, 42, was seized by militants in August after going to Syria to set up a private military contracting company, according to reports." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Oh, and someone might want to revert this—pure WP:OR.) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Requested Move (article rename) discussion that you may be interested in at Talk:The Adventures of Tintin (film)#Requested move 30 January 2015. Thank-you. Prhartcom (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not likely to be able to find your place this time, I'm waving now. (Still intent on getting that sushi). On a less Facebook-y note, I've got a crazy idea. Grave of the Fireflies. FA. Thoughts? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that was quite the vacation! Funny, I just got my hands on Graveyard, and still haven't gotten around to watching it (well, my wife insists I've seen it before, because it's always on TV, but I don't remember it). It'd be easy to source, I imagine. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't be surprised if it is... though they didn't have any Ghibli films on the flight. I'd have watched those. Greetings from Narita, where the sun is in my eyes and the saleclerks are giving me prices in dollars even though I'm paying in yen.

If you're interested, I think Dr. Blofeld would want to take part as well. The three of us would probably be able to handle that article well... I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The themes part would be interesting: the common Western interpretation that the film is anti-war, vs. what the director apparently intended (a condemnation of 1980s Japanese youth culture which didn't recognize or value the sacrifices made by those in the war) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I imagine such an article would require less of the Japanese sources (I imagine the otaku community has documented the film fairly well in English), so how about I let you (and the Doctor?) work your magic on it first, and then I'll trawl through the libraries here to find anything interesting to add. It's probably not ideal to add stuff from Japanese sources that may already be available in English. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Comics you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ed the Happy Clown page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help) and an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really watch many movies, so not buying a Blu-Ray player was not decision that kept me up at night. What initially clinched it with me was the Region Codes—something that drove me nuts about DVDs: I'd buy a DVD in Canada of , say, The Wizard of Oz, and find I couldn't play it on a Japanese player. Why? I spent actual money on the player. I spent actual money on the disc. I wasn't about to pay even higher prices to be put through that horeshit with Blu-Ray.

Well, my son was on TV a little while back. The station was nice enough to send us a burned disc of the spot (about five minutes). YOu've probably guessed they sent a a Blu-Ray disc. So, under orders from The Boss, I bought us a DVD drive for the desktop. We've had Ubuntu on the desktop since 2007 (I've got Debian on my laptop). The Blu-Ray people aren't much into Linux—there are workarounds to get Blu-Ray to work, but none of them worked for me this weekend. There used to be (32-bit only) PowerDVD for Ubuntu, but that seems to have disappeared (yes, I would have paid for it). Nothing worked for me. I was about to reinstall Vista (still have the disc that came with the desktop—haven't even dualbooted since 2007, though), only to find out that Microsoft doesn't actually support Blu-Ray—you still have to buy separate software just to run Blu-Ray discs?!? I mean, Jesus Christ, Blu-Ray people—no wonder everyone just downloads!

I mean, I'm not even talking about commercial Blu-Ray discs here. I can't even use the drive to burn a data Blu-Ray disc to backup my photos. A drive that I paid hard money for onto a disc I paid hard money for to store photos I took with a camera I paid hard money for! YOU HAVE MY MONEY, BLU-RAY PEOPLE! I HOPE YOU CHOKE ON IT! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is evil; I have had to purchase that software for my computer also. Get a used PlayStation 3 (that machine is our family Blu-Ray player). Then you guys can play the subject of my new GA article Beyond: Two Souls. Prhartcom (talk) 05:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out the gameplay---is it a Resident Evil kind of thing? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't have violence or horror or require much skill or eye-hand coordination; it's more of a thriller; think of it as a game "The Boss" would enjoy, as mine truly did. It's actually like watching a touching and exciting movie as you tilt the controller stick and cause the main character to go through the plot that is all pre-arranged for you. Hardcore gamers hated it because it wasn't a skill-based sport like Resident Evil, Grand Theft Auto, or Call of Duty (I have no interest in those). The gameplay is fully described, I sure hope that section communicates to the reader. We actually bought our PlayStation 3 just for that one game (we don't play much but knew that game was right up our alley). The machines are inexpensive, now that a newer model has come out, and so is that game at this late stage. When we occasionally rent a Blu-Ray we watch it from there. BTW, congrats to your son for being on TV. Prhartcom (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't quite believing what I was reading. So ... it's a "game" with no actual "game" in it? The TV spot was nothing really special—just a human-interest piece that was broadcast in the middle of the night on ice hockey in Shizuoka. To put that in perspective: Shizuoka is sub-tropical, and it only really snows in the mountains. The boy only appears in the background a few times, but still, we wanted to send a copy to my parents (on DVD—they haven't been roped into this Blu-Ray scam yet). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You sound like all the hardcore gamers. (Who sort of have a point.) No, it's a game, and really fun to play. Well, we liked it and so did millions of others. Here is something poignant that the creator said: Beyond: Two Souls#Legacy You just reminded me that my son was on TV when he was 3 years old when we lived in Canada. Prhartcom (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

You lived in Canada! Whereabouts? I'm a Southern Ontarian who spent a couple years in Alberta. What was your boy on TV for? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did we live there, but after being around and loving so many Canadian people, I developed a lifelong tremendous respect for Canada. Whenever I meet someone from Canada nowadays, my estimation of them automatically goes up. Even Canadian traffic is polite. We lived in beautiful Vancouver, BC, where the ocean meets the mountains meets the forest meets the city, from 1996–1999. I would love to see your part of Canada; "Canada's New York", I heard. I can't even remember why he was on now. I just remember my wife went out and got an agent for him and headshots of him (seriously); which of course never led to anything. Prhartcom (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"more valiant" this time, congrats! Should it go to the Main page soon? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! If someone were to propose it for the main page, I wouldn't oppose, but I've already got a few lined up for this year—Wordless novel will be there 10 February, and The Sinking of the Lusitania and Departures will be proposed later in the year. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I made a note here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose it's an "anniversary year" of sorts, since the bok took place in 1975. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Departures will be proposed later this year..." Ah, so I guess you've noticed my note for the bon festival. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did. Hopefully the festival will be mentioned in On this day... that day. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, Curly. I saw that the second sentence was cited, but not the one with the date. Secondarily, what with Don Markstein's passing, the Toonopedia website has sometimes gone down for weeks at a time, and it's may only be a matter of time before it's gone for good, so I've been archiving as many pages as I can before they're lost for good. (The Wayback Machine can't archive them; only Webcitation.org can). There are already so many ELs in that article, I figured it made sense to add it as a cite to the character here (since there's no separate article for it).

Pepso2 and Darkwarriorblake have helped with the archiving — there's a list of what we've saved so far here. But few of them have been integrated into articles since we've been concentrating on the archiving part. There's information in Toonopedia that appears virtually nowhere else on the Web, and in some cases barely in books! With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae: Is it really okay to archive those pages? Markstein was pretty militantly against it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First I've heard of that. And it's a larger issue than his personal desires — that's like an author trying to forbid libraries from preserving or loaning out his or her books. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae: Check out his Unauthorized Use Policy. One reason archive.org won't archive it is because he's set up the site so it won't be archived. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) If there is a way to archive a few pages from his remarkable work I think human knowledge needs us to do so, his wishes be damned. I hadn't tried to archive the one page I cited; I didn't think it would work. If our articles depend on his information then I think we should try to preserve it. His family has barely remembers to pay the web bill each year, for one thing. Prhartcom (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that is this thing called the legal system... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no law against a nonprofit organization archiving web pages, any more than there are laws against libraries archiving books. There's a big article in last week's New Yorker about the Wayback Machine that covers a lot of this ground in pretty good layman's terms.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm just making sure, given how militant Markstein was about it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking his intention was just to rightly protect the copyright of his work from plagiarists, not from us. The poor guy; I was reading about his final days after his stroke when he woke up in the hospital and learned he was not going to be able to continue his work. I'm sure he had planned to work indefinitely. Rest in peace, Don. Thanks to you, Tenebrae, for doing this archival work. Prhartcom (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Turkey, when you have the audio, can you insert Category:Metallica audio samples and add it to the article? Some ideas on what might be added to the lead would be appreciated (wherever you prefer–here or at the article's talk). Have a nice day.--Retrohead (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've uploaded it and added it to the article. I'll leave the captioning up to you. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Françoise Mouly you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I restored to a version before your edit (instead of one even earlier which missed many improvements), sorry. Standard - it's not only one. The English translation is only a translation, not a title itself. Happy listening ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Of course there were more than one, but it's a matter of grammar: in "The cantata shows elements which became standards" we're talking about standard elements—"standard" is an adjective here, and can't be pluralized. "Standard" as a pluralizable noun would refer to standard works, not elements—it would imply these elements have themselves become standard works. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Learning, - but I don't see an adjective yet (nor did any of the other FA reviewers). Is there a different word? Models? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps something like "The cantata displays what were to become standard elements"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead, - too tired to do anything useful ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... tired again, but tell you - before going to bed - that wordless novel is precious again ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, thanks! Gute Nacht! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! You're talking about the TFA. I'd forgotten that was today, until all of a sudden there was a pile of edits to it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Françoise Mouly you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Françoise Mouly for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Françoise Mouly you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Françoise Mouly for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 25 Images of a Man's Passion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 97198 -- 97198 (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw your edit summary comment regarding the use of "in the hospital" in the Kenji Ekuan article. That difference in American English was new to me, so apologies if I changed it unnecessarily. To British English readers, the wording will be confusing, as "the" implies that the hospital was mentioned or described earlier in the text, and, as it wasn't, the reader will be left wondering "Eh? What hospital?" Anyway, I learned something new today, so thanks. --DAJF (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DAJF (talk · contribs) I know, it's one of those more irritating ENGVAR differences. The only reason I knew the BrEng wording was from watching endless Britcoms when I was a kid—"in hospital" sounds like broken English to the vast majority of NAmEng speakers. It's probably best in most cases to avoid it by using a different wording ("hospitalized" or whatever fits the case). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 25 Images of a Man's Passion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:25 Images of a Man's Passion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 97198 -- 97198 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I am not very familiar with editing on Wikipedia. I have removed the photo which I agree broke the flow of the text. Thank you for pointing this out. May I ask you to please use a bold font for the Aftermath edit. I am simply trying to add some context to the Aftermath section as it is not evident from the article that the Porte de Vincennes shootings and hostage crisis a) occurred in Ile de France as the subsection suggest and b) there is no causation in the article. Clearly the hostage crisis and subsequent killings at the Hypercacher supermarket were related to Charlie Hebdo. May I please ask for your assistance with what I believe is a simple edit? Thank you. Feel free to email me at adam.blitzATcolumnist.com AB

The article Comics you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Comics for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Prhartcom -- Prhartcom (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, you must be a sucker for punishment. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I can see a lot of ways the article can be improved yet, but I don't think I'll ever take this to FAC—the sources are too problematic. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some kinda prank? Can't get pageview stats from the 7th to the 10th---and Wordless novel was TFA for the 10th. Grr ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. It was broken during the appearance on the main page (DYK) of an article I improved too. It was broken on the 4th, through the 7th–10th, and is broken now. The classic tool here is just a broken. Nothing wrong with Wikipedia's web server page counts (here). User talk:Henrik maintains the tool but does not normally answer messages on their Talk page. Aarg. Prhartcom (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the WMF doesn't provide its own tools, instead of linking to a private user's tool nobody can access. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stats are back. Wordless novel got 21,667 hits. Much better than I expected. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. Thanks for the heads up and nice job on those stats. My DYK article got 4x the number of usual hits. The TFA today (only a few more minutes) is of (mostly) Midnightblueowl and also myself; those status should be available soon. What a day it was; I had to tell one guy WP:NOBLE. Prhartcom (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathize with him. Quite likely there's some source somewhere (likely in French) that gives this sort of context, but it can't just be grafted onto the article like that (and the wording veers into POV territory, but I wasn't about to say that to him—he's likely to misinterpret it as me implying there are two sides to the story or something). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting RS material? For example, that the attackers shot scores of bullets in the Copenhagen shooting? You've now deleted that twice. Without an appropriate reason. Please don't. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What are you talking about? The article still mentions that police reported up to 200 bullets were fired. What do you seriously think your "scores of bullets" adds to the article? Do you seriously not understand what the word "spray" means? This writing is garbage. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[I'm moving the below related parallel conversation here from my talkpage -- no sense saying everything twice in different places.]

Verbal diarrhea

You're not seriously going to start an edit war over garbage writing like this, are you? This kind of writing is incompetent. You are adding words without adding information. Please revert. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have now repeatedly deleted RS-supported information. As mentioned on your talkpage. Without any appropriate reason. I will ask you to stop. Plus, of course the "seminar" was not shot at, but the people in attendance. Feel free to bring your assertion that it is better writing to say the "seminar" was shot at than the people in it to the talk page of the article -- the same with your deletion of RS-supported material, such as that they were sprayed with scores of bullets ... that is information. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have done no such thing. The number of bullets the police reported is still in the article, and "spray" implies "scores of bullets". Your writing is redundant. Why are you not understanding this? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think a "seminar" is? It's people! There's no such thing as a seminar without people! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you not understanding that you -- now twice -- insisted that the "seminar" was sprayed with bullets ... rather than the people in it ... and for some unknown reason think that is superior English? A seminar is not the same as the people attending a seminar -- it is a class or a meeting, not the people attending the seminar.

And this is where we talk about the shooting -- so this is where we should talk about what the shooting consisted of ... meaning how many bullets were fired. If someone added similar information elsewhere, feel free to move it here, where it belongs and where it is already RS-supported and in existence. Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please provide a credible example of an English sentence in which one could open fire on a seminar and not target people.
2. Demosntrate a single example of information that I have removed that is not elsewhere in the article.
3. "If someone added similar information elsewhere, feel free to move it here, where it belongs and where it is already RS-supported and in existence.": This is a non sequitur. The number is quoted where police gave it. "Scores" is not a number, and is entirely redundant to "sprayed". It's like saying, "I kicked him in the head with my foot." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Epeefleche:, are you a native English speaker? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You sign up for a seminar, you attend a seminar, and you shoot people attending a seminar.

Yes. I am a native English speaker. But I have never heard of the word "Demosntrate" that you use above.

"Scores" is a number. It means "a multiple of twenty" in English. There is a difference between saying you kicked him, and saying you kicked him "scores" of times. Epeefleche (talk) 06:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You sign up for a seminar, you attend a seminar, and you shoot people attending a seminar.": I said : "Please provide a credible example of an English sentence in which one could open fire on a seminar and not target people." This doesn't even remotely demonstrate such a thing.

"I have never heard of the word "Demosntrate"—was this supposed to demonstrate a point, or simply your tendentiousness?

"Scores" is a number.: No, "200" is a number, and it's in the article. Only "a score" is twenty—"scores" is merely the larger cousin of "several"—a non-number. Not that it matters in the least—it does not express an idea that is not already contained in "sprayed". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your last comment -- I'm uncertain why you have difficulty understanding that there is a substantive difference between "sprayed with bullets," and "sprayed with scores of bullets." The first example could contemplate, say ... 17 bullets. The second requires that there be at least 40. That's a material difference. Epeefleche (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Scores" can mean 40, or 39, or 43, or similar numbers hovering around 60, 80, 100, etc---it is a vague "number" just asare "several" and "dozens". "Sprayed" implies all of those numbers, and ththis is no less precise. "200" means "200". That's a number. It's also in the article already. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you must be thrilled that some moron has now changed it to "several". Problem? Solved! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I believe I'm the "moron" in question. Just to let you know, the entire purpose of that particular edit was to correct the inaccuracy of describing the weapon used at the first shooting as an "automatic rifle", when there was nothing sourced to confirm that and when the audio from the attack pretty clearly refuted it. Subsequent edits removed my use of "several". No problem - I improved on the earlier text in one area; someone else improved on mine in another. Many edits since have changed that section substantially and it's even better now than it was before. I call that success, don't you? -- Hux (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hux: I want to apologize—partly I was in a pissy mood, and partly I was reverse-projecting (in my mind, you must have been a "moron" to Epeefleche for such a wording. I couldn't have expressed that more poorly). I'll say I appreciate your improving the accuracy of the article.

@Epeefleche: Here, let's just admit to each otehr that we've been a couple of pissy bitches and call a truce. We both edited in good faith, and were each offended at the other for accusations otherwise. Deal? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will now officiate the group hug. Points will be awarded for technique and sincerity. Begin! -- Hux (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many points for a bearhug? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont think seminar is the right word here anyway, it was was public debate meeting. Pithy writing is good. Redundancy is redundant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right—"seminar" wasn't the right word in the first place, but it was the word that was there when I began copyediting. I'll go change it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Let's remain calm here, people. If one is right, others will see it and will join in. Begin to lose composure and we begin to lose the battle. Prhartcom (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.36.59 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus -- your combining paragraphs here was not helpful. Those are two separate events. There was no benefit to blurring matters by combining the paras. Epeefleche (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've explained my reasons for doing that. Please refute them rather than mindlessly revert. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't seen any valid reason for combining those two separate events into one paragraph. And I haven't reverted mindlessly. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curly -- you may remember that when you were blocked recently, I was the editor who came to your defense. And suggested that your block be lifted early.

I'm surprised, especially given that, that your tone is as markedly uncivil and disrespectful as it has been. As one of many recent examples, you just now engaged in a personal attack, above in responding to me, by calling editor Hux a "moron".

Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and one of its five pillars. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively.

Please be civil, assume good faith, and take to heart the Wikipedia policy of civility.Epeefleche (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Epeefleche: If civility is your concern, then you'll immediately be retracting your repeated hostile accusastions of removing sourced information from the article, right? And apologize for sniping at a typo of mine? And for starting an editwar, and for ignoring my direct questions? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are not taking to heart what I said.

I pointed to you just now calling an editor a moron. You can cull through your own edits, as well as see the views of others expressed about them even these past 48 hours, to see the incivility I am referring to.

You in reply have failed to focus on your incivility. You only sought to deflect. By turning the focus away from your incivility.

If you continue down this course, especially since you are inclined to do it with the one editor who came to your defense when you were recently blocked, it may prove problematic in the future. Blocks are meted out for incivility. I would urge you to reconsider your approach. Please take this as a gentle warning. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Epeefleche: Okay, you've made it clear you're here to pick a fight. I retract my declarartion that I believed you were acting in good faith. Now stay off my talk page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Login required has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Gadget850 ^talk 10:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some people just can't play nice... - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like it's going to go anywhere. But what happened to me? Ain't I co-OWENer? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AN3#User:Andiar.rohnds reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result:Both blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @EdJohnston: I won't be appealing, but I would like you to reconsider the lengths of the blocks, given that:
  1. Andiar.Rohnds's reverts were far more numerous, and against more editors
  2. Andiar.rohnds's edits are clear-cut POV-pushing against the established consensus, and were concealed under misleading edit summaries
• Out crimes are hardly equivalent by any measure, and I hope you don't want to give the impression they are. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and immediately following the block, an IP reinstated Andiar.rohnds's contentious edit. How much you wanna bet who that IP is? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @EdJohnston: There are now at least three accounts continuing the edit war. Will something be done? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, Curly, the block lengths in these situations are usually only relative to your own block history. That this was your second block for edit warring on this article is likely what led EdJohnston to impose the 72-hour block. A third block for edit warring will likely be at least a week, and at some point, a request to have you topic banned from the article could follow. As to the nature of the edit war - if the other party has been adding POV or other misleading content, please take it to ANI if they won't discuss their changes, accept existing consensus or insist on edit warring. Getting yourself frustrated and blocked doesn't help either you or the project. Particularly since you are such an excellent content contributor. Cheers! Resolute 20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Andiar.rohnds has been caught evading his block and had his block extended to a week, so whatever.
    <rant>Any faith I had in ANI when I brought up a situation in which three groups were edit-warring against each other, involving perhaps a dozen editors. Some smartass who knew how to game the system convinced an admin not to bother even to look and that it was really a "Turkey-versus-the-world" situation, and then filibustered the thread so that nobody else would bother to look at it—with great success. A couple of other 3RR reports were ignored, and this one was looking like it was going to be ignored, too (some of the later reports had already been dealt with before this one closed). Let's just say my confidence in the system was (is) not high.</rant> Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, the system does suck at times. Mostly, I just don't want to see you end up on a treadmill out of here. Not enough good Canadian content editors about! Resolute 16:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd thank your comment, but apparently a block prevents even such pleasantries. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

Hafspajen (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What's the occasion? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it involves the turkey there on the left. ;-) (Which is wearing a ring.) Prhartcom (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Forgive me I was—ahem—distracted by other details in the work. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the one I hung at the bottom of my Talk page the other day. Prhartcom (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All them nipples—NSFW! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/I never liked you, sorry, I missed some capitals, don't know if it should be moved or stay, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it makes a difference—maybe you should ask the coodinators. I made come copyedits to the blurb. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Latins (Italic tribe), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-Europeans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven of the staff did not die. Of the twelve, Frédéric Boisseau was a building maintenance worker for Sodexo; there were two policemen killed; and one "guest" editor, who by the term "guest" obviously cannot be termed a "member of staff". So please revert back to either eleven people in the building (as well as the policeman outside), or eight members of staff. Ericoides (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or something that's not a clumsy mouthful. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ericoides (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No...it's just that the text sections are short, and that a left alignment would push around text as well as section headers in a bad way because of that. - Anonimski (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request_for_Comment whose outcome could affect WikiProject Film. You may wish to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to do a GA review for Utagawa Toyoharu. Would you be okay with that, or would you rather someone else do it? Rationalobserver (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think you have to ask permission, unless there's some potential COI. Please go ahead! Most of the material is sourced to print-only sources, though, a couple of which are only in Japanese---this can make verification difficult if you spot any potential referencing issues. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll start tomorrow. Rationalobserver (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Utagawa Toyoharu you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is potentially very bad: http://toonopedia.com/ shows up, but for the past day at least, none of the links go to any page. I hope it's only that the family just forgot to pay the ISP bill, and not that it's down for good — we've had such scares before. As a fellow fan of the site, I thought you'd want to know. Let's keep our fingers crossed for its return.... --Tenebrae (talk) 19:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Tenebrae, I am a fan also; a check of ICANN's WHOIS database says that on 3 February 2015 the bill was paid for five whole years this time; it next expires 6 February 2020. The site is down currently for some reason; it cannot be related to the payment so this makes no sense. Hopefully it will be up in a few hours. RIP Don. Prhartcom (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been worried that would happen for a while. It's unfortunate, and it's one reason I've taken to preferring paper sources, which won't disappear. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prhartcom, you are a whiz, and you bring good news to all of us who use of the work of that late comics scholar. Thanks! (And continued kudos to Curly Turkey for all his good work.) --Tenebrae (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much of a whiz that I can magically bring the site back up. Thankfully you, Tenebrae, have archived the entire website. Curly Turkey is right of course, and I wish Don had published one last book. I have chatted with the site's web hosting company (who of course refused me) and I have written an email to the proxy service that hides the site owners; hopefully they will forward my message to them. Crossing fingers. Prhartcom (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope something comes from it. I have to wonder what the point of putting it up was if he's just going to let it die like that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I only wish I had archived the whole site, but it's immense. A couple of other editors and I archived several pages, listed at User:Tenebrae/Toonopedia backup, and I've very slowly been integrating them into articles as appropriate. I'd gotten complacent and hadn't archived much in the last couple of years, thinking it was back to stay. More fool me. But, yes, thank goodness we have at least these bits of his priceless research saved. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, feel free, obviously, to integrate any of these links yourselves. I only ask you note "added to [this subject's] Wikipedia article" or "added to General Mills monster-themed breakfast cereals" or whatever, to help keep track and avoid duplicate efforts. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's back up. Prhartcom (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Utagawa Toyoharu you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Utagawa Toyoharu for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They've got a show going on Kobayashi Kiyochika at the Shizuoka City Museum of Art. I might drag a couple of the kids there tomorrow. Meanwhile I've been uploading artwork—one of these deals I'll put some work into his article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Prints by Kobayashi Kiyochika
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• One Hundred Aspects of the Moon
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• I only count twenty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Twenty PNGs, twenty JPGs. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, it falls eighty short of a full set. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Second one was my point; do they not have any more?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • They have more Yoshitoshi, but not from this series. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unless they're in the offline collection. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • That royally sucks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Drunk off the moon? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd've thought Sen no Rikyū was a ... tea totaller (ba-dump ching). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, why couldn't you leaf it be! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CT, how's things? I'm in the process of throwing Sakakibara Kenkichi up against the wall for GA assessment - I'm fairly happy with it, but one thing's bugging me - the Kurumazaka dojo. I understand this came orginally from the ja-wiki article, but I can't find any reference to a Tokyo suburb named Kurumazaka. I just wanted to check whether this could have been a mis-Romanization - there's a Kagurazaka that seems to fit the bill (it was near the castle where he worked, and had a history as an entertainment district so his bar and theatre projects would not have been out of place). Could 神楽坂 be conceivabley mis-transliterated as "Kurumazaka", or am I barking up the wrong tree here? Yunshui ^雲_水 13:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, it was definitely 車坂, and a search for 車坂道場 turns up quite a few hits, most of which relate to Skakakibara. According to the article for the former Shitaya Ward (ja:下谷区—no en.wp article) the former Kurumazaka, Kami-Kurumazaka, and Shimo-Kurumazaka are now merged into Ueno and Higashi-Ueno. I haven't had any luck finding the exact location, and it looks like Jirōkichi Yamada moved it in 1904 to Hongō, so perhaps the Kurumazaka location hasn't been preserved. I'm sure there's a map somewhere, but I haven't had any luck. According to a blog, he opened the dojo in Kurumazaka in 1864, but I can't find a RS that confirms this (most of the J-books on Google Books are only snippet views at best). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're such a hero, thanks! Yunshui ^雲_水 12:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Judas Priest—Sad Wings of Destiny lineup.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary made me smile. Thanks for your work with the copyedit! VQuakr (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank You! I Do My Best! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at The Exaltation of the Flower. I think it's poor form to add a citation needed tag to an article waiting for a GAR, particularly regarding a statement that does not exactly require a citation, namely the uncontested historical fact that Pharsalos is known for the Battle of Pharsalus. It seems quite silly, in fact, for two reasons: a) it is easily supported at the given links, and b) the following sentence notes that the archaeologist in question was "involved in an official mission to collect objects related to Caesar's campaigns". Well, that pretty much proves the point, after all, Julius Caesar defeated Pompey during the Great Roman Civil War at the Battle of Pharsalus. But let's look at the statement:

• The town of Farsala was once named Pharsalos, and was known for the Battle of Pharsalus.

Is this any qualitatively different than saying

• New York was once named New Amsterdam, and was named after the Duke of York.

Would a serious citation be needed for any of these statements?

If you are seriously concerned, you could have made a note on the talk page, but it seems quite extreme to demand a citation for a self-evident historical fact already associated with the very reason the archaeologist found the work in the first place. This seems to be similar to a "is the sky really blue" request. Of course, if there is a reason to question or challenge this, then by all means, ask the question on the talk page. Finally, can you give me a link to a guideline that supports your claim that "images should be placed after a title, not right before it"? The image was deliberately placed before the title to float it across two different sections, per common practice for the purpose of layout. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Placing an image just before a title is a common practice? I'm totally unfamiliar with it, and I've got nearly 5000 pages on my Watchlist. MOS:IMAGELOCATION states: "An image should generally be placed in the section of the article that is most relevant to the image."

I don't know what to tell you, other than you are wrong. MOS:IMAGELOCATION has notthing whatsoever to do with the floating placement of an image. It has to do with the relevance of an image to a particular section. Those are two different concepts, so I don't know how you could have confused the two. But let's play your game. Your edit, in fact, violated MOS:IMAGELOCATION, as it removed the image of Farsala from the relevant background section where it is discussed. You removed it from the relevant section and placed it in the next section, which doesn't discuss Farsala. I'm surprised it didn't occur to you that the reason editors float images like this is because a) there isn't enough space in the relevant section, and b) it improves layout to float them between, so that the image hangs from the relevant section into the next, without forcing it and cramping the layout or the image size. There is no guideline or policy that prevents or forbids "hanging" or "floating" an image between sections. None. Viriditas (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Game"? You're accusing me of playing games? You've jumped remarkably quickly to accusations of bad faith. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "game" is that you claimed the image placement violated MOS:IMAGELOCATION. However, it was your edit that violated that guideline. The image was previously (and correctly) placed in the relevant section. The fact that it floated into the next is perfectly acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think you're making some sort of point with your bad faith accusations? What "game" are you trying to win, Viritidas? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for the {{cn}}—sorry, but it's hardly a "sky is blue" sort of statement, and throwing a {{cn}} on it is not "challenging" it per se—it's a request for verification. It should be easy enough to source. Leaving it unsourced really is not going to fly. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:44, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree. It is a 100% "the sky is blue" statement. Once again: "The town of Farsala was once named Pharsalos, and was known for the Battle of Pharsalus." This is easily verified by visiting the links. I added a source just now, for absolutely no good reason, considering that the following sourced statement explains that the archaeologist in question was there because he was looking for "objects related to Caesar's campaigns". I wonder, what could these campaigns be? Could it be...the Battle of Pharsalus? Already sourced in the following sentence, again, and another source wasn't needed, hence the reason I took issue with your unnecessary tagging. Is this material likely to be challenged per V? Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how an editor with your experience could think that could possibly be acceptable. "The sky is blue" doesn't require citation because the banal truth of that statement stares us in the face every day. The feats of long-dead people in faraway lands? Please take a moment to ponder that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, nothing about the statement was challenged or likely to be challenged. You simply added a citation needed tag for no reason. Was the idea that Farsala was once named Pharsalos in dispute? Or that it was known for the Battle of Pharsalus? Nope. That was precisely the reason the archaeologist was cited for being in the area looking for relics. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep telling yourself that. This GAN review is more aggravation than it's worth. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You never started a review, nor did you give any indication you were reviewing it. You added a citation tag for no reason, and anyone who does that without starting a review could put the review in jeopardy. If you wanted to start a review in the first place, there's a proper way of doing that. Even if you had simply said, "I'm reviewing this article, please add a cite for this reason", then that's another thing. There's a lack of communication here, and it's not coming from me. I can't tell what you are doing by watching smoke signals. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, right, right—out of the 4 million+ articles on Wikipedia, I just randomly chose yours to copyedit. I honestly couldn't give a flying fuck about what you think is the "proper way" to do anything, given how little you understand about Wikipedia basics. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand just fine, and I'm allowed to disagree with you. It seems you aren't aware that many editors copyedit articles in the GAN queue without ever doing a review. Those who choose to do a review, OTOH, create the review page, which trips the bot flag and then notifies the nominator on their page. When this is done, the nominator then waits to comment. You seem to think this is unusual, but it's not. Viriditas (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I "seem to think" no more than you are entirely full of shit—and being a GAN is in no way an immunity from other editors touching your precious article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"'New York was once named New Amsterdam, and was named after the Duke of York.' Would a serious citation be needed for any of these statements?": absolutely. You simply couldn't get away without a citation for such. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, you wouldn't need a citation for any of that in an article outside of New York, because they are uncontested facts already sourced in their parent articles and aren't likely to be challenged by anyone. Viriditas (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. Under no cicumstances could "it's sourced in another article" ever possibly fly. Such an assertion insults the intelligence. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, per WP:V, the guiding policy on source requirements, there is nothing about any of these statements where their verifiability could be challenged. Are you challenging the notion that Farsala was once named Pharsalos, or that New York was once named New Amsterdam? Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice strawman. I already said I'm not challenging it, but it needs a citation. Seriously, what are you not comprehending? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need a citation? For the record, I've already added one, but it didn't need one. The statement is common knowledge and easy to verify with inline links. If I say, "The French Revolution began in 1789 and ended in 1799" in an article other than the French Revolution, do I need to source that statement? No, I do not. Viriditas (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Viritidas, can you go troll someone else? I'm finished with you and your horsehit. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse me of trolling yet you do this. No wonder you have a problem. Viriditas (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling indeed when you resort to random personal attacks. Oh, this is rich! Not only does nobody buy your "sky is blue" horseshit, but the veracity of the statement itself is now being questioned! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Debido page. Sorry, I don't know if there's a specific Talk page for the Debido page.

Anyway, I did not remove any citations (or certainly did not mean to; if I did it was in error). I left the notice that the Onsen book was included in a library of recommended reading, for example. I did remove reviews that only discussed how 'good' or 'bad' the publication was; if 'bad reviews' are not relevant, than neither are good reviews, and in any event this isn't a marketing page responsible for selling his publications. GrandTheftVotto (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much indeed for your comprehensive scrub and polish of the above. Much improved and much appreciated. And then I saw your equally comprehensive comments at FAC. Really excellent suggestions which I saw address as soon as possible. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's nice to be appreciated! Looking forward to seeing this get promoted soon. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC):[reply]

Dear Curly Turkey, I'm hoping that we've now addressed the outstanding concerns re. the above. Would you kindly let me know on the FAC page if we haven't. In the event that there's nothing outstanding, your support would be very much appreciated. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again. Have we addressed your outstanding concerns? KJP1 (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your Support for the article. Your comments and suggestions have greatly improved it. Many thanks indeed. KJP1 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but I have to say I was a little surprised that both of you came to my talk page asking if I was going to support. I don't care myself, but generally that kind of thing's frowned upon—I've seen the coordinators tell the nominators not to do that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is Tenniel's cartoon - representing 'Crime' as a result of the socio-economic neglect of London's slums - pertinent to Priest's "The Ripper"? Keri (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the file is File:Jack-the-Ripper-The-Nemesis-of-Neglect-Punch-London-Charivari-cartoon-poem-1888-09-29.jpg. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the name of the original illustration is just "Nemesis of Neglect"; that some random user of Wikipedia has chosen to add the prefix "Jack-the-Ripper" is irrelevant. I'm not going to edit war over it, but its use strikes me as pretty lazy shorthand. Keri (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe the Museum of London will convince you: "The nemesis of neglect by John Tenniel depicts Jack the Ripper as a knife wielding phantom hovering over the slums of Whitechapel." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A long letter on 18 September 1888 ispired one of the most famous 'Ripper' cartoons to appear in Punch, 'The Nemesis of Neglect' ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is another example of lazy thinking. The second link is correct: the cartoon was inspired by a letter to The Times, which appeared on page 11 of the 18 September 1888 issue. The letter is a polemic against the urban, moral and social decay of the slums of London, eg "We have far too long been content to know that within a walk of palaces and mansions... there have existed tens of thousands of our fellow creatures begotten and reared in an atmosphere of godless brutality, a species of human sewage, the very drainage of the vilest production of ordinary vice; such sewage ever on the increase, and in its increase forever developing fresh depths of degradation..." The crimes of the slums - all crimes of the slums - the correspondent asserted, were "the means of affording to us a warning it will be at our extreme peril to neglect." Tenniel's cartoon is an allegory, not a picture of "The Ripper". Keri (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long-established, well-recognized symbol of the Ripper. You won't find many books on Jack the Ripper than don't talk about the cartoon. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to make this political? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Political"? Say what? Clearly, this discussion has run its course. You seem unable to grasp Tenniel's use of personification of an abstract idea, and I can't be bothered trying to explain that any longer. Have a nice day. Keri (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Curley Turkey" is that your gangsta name or just simply a euphemism for your penis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.254.132.48 (talk • contribs)

I'm too modest to say, but I could let you have a gobble to find out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. My religion prevents me from eating shrimp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.254.70.77 (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it only took you two days to come up with that one. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it took a few seconds. I only got around to seeing this just now. Unlike you I have a life outside of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.254.70.77 (talk) 08:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've now used up the stock of comebacks you've built up in your twelve long years. Enjoy the rest of your "life outside of Wikipedia" at 4chan. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gobble gobble, motherfucker! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=turkey+dick

Well, I won't argue with an expert. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:09, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's two remaining points I gather you wanted addressed? Are you planning on supporting once fixed?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, this page is is for discussing my penis, and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep on topic.

... but seriously, yes, one of the points was an error on my behalf, but the other (the footnote) really needs to be dealt with. Other than that I'm ready to support. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ew. I've reworded and removed the quote. Is that OK?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have replied to your suggestions and concerns at Norodom Chakrapong's GAN. Feel free to take a look and see if it maybe passed or merits further improvements. Apologies for the delay in replying. Mr Tan (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I have addressed and replied to the small number suggestions that you have posted on Chakrapong's GAN. At this stage I believe that it maybe cleared for promotion? :) Let me know if there still are additional issues to be addressed. You may do a review of Norodom Ranariddh if you wish, but please bear with me and don't close/fail the review as yet if I can't get back to you very quickly. Thanks and cheers! Mr Tan (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pretty sure when I searched for Lijah Wood I was hoping to find Elijah Wood, and not List of Gaunt's Ghosts characters, Pretty Little Liars (season 3), Pretty Little Liars (season 5), Pretty Little Liars (season 4), Herb Vigran, Gaunt's Ghosts, Pretty Little Liars (season 2), or List of Gunsmoke television episodes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Curly. I looked for「八ヶ夕」 and 「六ヶ跡」on the web, but couldn't find anything. Purely as a guess, I would say やつがゆう and むつがせき, but I guess it's actually "don't know".

One thing I noticed in the Utagawa Toyoharu article is that the captions for two of the pictures in the Four Arts gallery seem to be switched. The one labeled Painting shows them Playing Go, and vice versa. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I think I reordered them when I noticed I had them out of order, but forget to moved the captions with them.

Those are the readings I figured, but I couldn't confirm it on the web or in any of my dictionaries. Educated guesses with kanji always seem to come back to bite me. I just wanted to include a list of Toyoharu's series that I found in 浮世絵芸術. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have switched them myself but it seems the file names also need to be switched. If that can be done I'll create a category for them on Commons. Just did that for the first time yesterday (for the picture in Nogawa Park). – Margin1522 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wasn't that stupid. I'll request a name change. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? I like Curly Turkey... Hafspajen (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MY name is not TURKEY .... Hafspajen (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you keep turning me down Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would ... lack the finesse...if you are serious, we can always discuss it. Of course. . Hafspajen (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you like kinky games...Hafspajen (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your lovely exquisite recent edits. Wikipedia warmly and from all its hart appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Sculptor (comics), you added a silly link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, though people using Turkey as usernames often do that anyway; since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Give flowers to bot, and read the FAQ • Send your flowers to the DPL WikiProject.

It's not OK to remove this message, cos why would you. Also, to get receiving more such messages, follow these more message instructions - or mess up more links ... Thanks, kisses, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Love & kisses, DPL bot! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, you made something wrong with this article's link, you have to check that. Thanks, kisses, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm? What did I do? I don't seem to be in the edit history. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1 april!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thanks, kisses, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary for things which need to be addressed. Relentlessly (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article My War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article My War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:My War for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Retrohead -- Retrohead (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia (7th nomination)... Hafspajen (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted twice. What humourless bitches. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the George Herriman page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are theses people doing? Hafspajen (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They're floats in a festival called the Shiohi Matsuri ("Low-tide Festival") in Aichi Prefecture. Aichi's right next to Shizuoka, where I live, but I've never heard of the festival. Apparently it has been held for at least 300 years, and celebrates the landing there of Jinmu, the legendary first Emperor of Japan, who is also a god and is the object of worship at the local shrine (Shinto whorships a plethora of gods, and each shrine is dedicated to a different one). The tall structures are called dashi—they're floats common in Japanese festivals, although these are particularly tall ones (at least in my experience, but most of the festivals I've seen have been in Shizuoka). Sometimes the floats are on wheels, and sometimes they are carried, as these ones are (I've helped carry one of those things before—when you've got a lot of people, it's not as heavy as you would imagine). Apparently, the ones in these pictures have puppets performances on them. Here's a wall of pictures from the festival (first of two pages), and here's the ja.wp page on it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank very much you for your recent edits. Wikipedia indeed appreciates your help very very much. We noticed though that when you edited Eightball (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rally rally (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). You really are such a flirt! Such links are almost always unintended, but since you have been caught flirting with our bots, we can't really remain unsuspicious. a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's NOT OK to remove this message. Also, to START receiving MORE OF these messages, just follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy Easter
	Happy Easter....  ! Hafspajen (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter! I'd never seen Kiichi Okamoto's work before, but I like it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't? quite nice, aren't they? Hafspajen (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Asterix-Ludwigshafen-Gartenstadt-02.JPG

  • What are Asterix and Obelix laughing about? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You know, back home usually we'd have a turkey or ham for Easter...  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Something that is happening File:Asterix-Ludwigshafen-Gartenstadt-01.JPG here. Hafspajen (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisco 1492 - did you ever tried semla? Hafspajen (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not yet. My stomach says "do it" but my veins scream "no!" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• K-Pop. The only thing I understand I love you ...every day. Hafspajen (talk) 10:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I used to teach junior high school in Indonesia. I've listened to more than enough K-Pop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Om, gosh. You are brave. Hafspajen (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • K-Pop: J-Pop with abs. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (And a shit-ton of plastic surgery.) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • And a Featured Picture — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately it doesn't feature their abs. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) (edit conflict)(edit conflict) Show me them, J-Pops. Hafspajen (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww3KFgTlOD0 Hafspajen (talk) 10:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this. But mostly AKB48 and a whole whack of pretty-boy bands. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Half the girls in Japan are in some kind of AKB spinoff band. I'm surprised there were enough left over to make up a Momoiro Clover Z. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but then they ran out, so they had to create Hatsune Miku digitally. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm so glad there's a Japan outside of Akihabara. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My kids aren't into any of that stuff though. Instead they're into this shit (not normally in English). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 12:03, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and I Never Liked You, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Danke! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. I'd be very grateful if you could give Castell Coch a read and comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Castell Coch/archive1. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember you trimming some stuff out of "Legacy and Influence" (not a bad idea in itself). An IP has just put it all back. What shall we do? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be unable to explain something that seems simple to me, about the translation of the closing hymn, and I don't want to try a third time in the nom. I translated the stanza above the poem, did you see? Later - on your request - I added the poetic translation which, however, has a different meaning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the issue is that it has a different meaning, then perhaps it should be left out. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried specifically to compare 3 items which are translated differently, but have the problem that I don't know grammatical terms well enough ;) - repeating one item: "lehr uns" is "may teach us", not "teaches us" (which would be "lehrt uns"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "lehr" in the subjunctive? I don't know how the subjunctive works in German, but perhaps it could translate to "That the Holy Spirit ... teach us"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean, I don't know what "subjunctive" is, and I would not have known the subjunctive of teach. If it is what I think it is, the translation is good! ("lehr" is poetically short for "lehre") Anyway: it's something that is not yet true but hoped and prayed for to become true, - like collaboration became true in a sad case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been misunderstanding all along. I thought the translation was yours, and that you were worried if you'd done it right. I notice the source you cite (and a bunch of others I can see online) use "lehrt uns" rather than "lehr uns". You might want to change it to one that uses "lehr uns". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I found! It has "lehr uns"—and another English translation: "His Word, His Baptism, His Supper / Serve to protect us from all disaster; / May the Holy Spirit teach us / To rely upon this in faith". I think the "May ... teach us" translation gets across what you were saying. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I never looked at the German, knowing the song from memory! - Yes, will use what you found. Hymn writer and song will get an article soon, modelled after Gesius, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you have time, I just noticed that prose issues were found in Maria Radner, sad story, on the Main page and yesterday made GA, - I have a rehearsal, also don't feel like the ideal person to fix English prose ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick ce, but what prose issues are you talking about? I don't see anything obvious on the talk page. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Issues were added to the GA review today, which is transcluded to the talk. - Congrats to your latest FA, - what a title! (see also, spares me to repeat all the deaths) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sad Wings of Destiny you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming that someone deletes your talkpast post deliberately instead of through an edit conflict is a pretty serious act of bad faith CT. And calling someones extended arguments that you are too lazy too read "posturing" makes any further intent at communication futile.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've demonstrated your bad faith about as clearly as you could have, Maunus: you know perfectly well I've read through the article, so how else is one to interpret your claims that I haven't? The ferociousness of your opposition even to allowing discussion of suggested changes to the article is beyond all comprehension. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have now refactored my comments twice. Once reinserting a comment that I had made and then removed because I didnt wish to engage you further, and now removing a comment of mine that you didnt like. Don't do that. You have no right to do that. I deleted your comment originally by mistake in an editconflict, you are clearly doing it on purpose. I also have had no bad faith against you until recently, I was merely extremely upset at your total lack of respect for other peoples work and expertise, and your arrogance in arguing for severe cuttings of content that cost me and several other editors a month of hard work, without having even tried to understand why we wrote the article the way we did. Yes, I was offended and insulted by your arrogance and lack of respect. Yes I reacted badly because I am in a burnout phase. But you did absolutely nothing at any point to de-escalate the conflict. To the contrary you systematically responded only to the irritated tone and never to the substantial arguments I made. You are just as much a "troll" as I am in this case. So get of that high horse as the civil and offended innocent editor. If you want to engage seriously and substantially with arguments on how to actually improve the article while showing respect for other people's work and expertise I will be more than willing to lay aside this anger that I have towards you right now. 172.0.128.110 (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, get off it—the "conflict" has been entirely one-sided. Your response to the mere idea of reducing th elength of the article has been nothing but contempt and hostility, and the comment I reverted is pure trolling by any definition of the word. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As will be obvious to anyone who reads this exchange it is you are the asshole who trolled a GA review with contempt arrogance and hostility and you got served in kind.172.0.128.110 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dear. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 19:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently opened the 2nd FAC for the article. The article had failed its first FAC due to WP:PUNC and MOS:LQ issues, which were resolved in the article's 2nd peer review. Please do let me know if you would like to make any comments regarding prose and punctuation issues, if any are found. Thanks. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Destiny (wordless novel) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sad Wings of Destiny you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sad Wings of Destiny for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sparklism -- Sparklism (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Destiny (wordless novel) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Destiny (wordless novel) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Say, you offered a helpful drive-by suggestion on the Bazy Tankersley FAC? I have three supports now, but I think I need five (?) Care to pop over and offer an eval on the FAC? (If you have something pending, I'd be glad to reciprocate). Montanabw^(talk) 20:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you needed five, I think only one of my FAs would ever have passed! There's no set number (it's up to the discretion of the coordinators), but the rule of thumb is three, so you should be fine. Not blowing you off, but I actually have things to do this weekend, and I've only been coming to WP when I need a break (and even then, more often than I should). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and me both. Montana, if it's been stalled for a bit, it's probably because you're missing something. I don't see a media review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I pinged Nikkimaria today, is she the only person doing image reviews? Curly Turkey, thanks for your review, I answered your questions, probably fixed about half and had questions on the others - though the same question for several. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there are plenty of people who do image reviews—I've done some, and Crisco there seems to do them pretty frequently (he knows a thing or two about images). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, I do. Right now I'm out of town and I wouldn't trust this connection with image reviews... rather too slow. When I get back, however. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nikkimaria's already gotten to it, so no worries. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Great. Prepping for my seminar tomorrow after a day of getting sunburned. I look like Mr. Krabs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks guys! Montanabw^(talk) 06:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back atcha, I have three of the four and a pretty good argument for the other. And your point is well-taken with a good link for my own review. Not that I agree 100%, but 75% ain't bad for the likes of me!  :-D Montanabw^(talk) 04:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curly, your name has been invoked (hopefully in error) as a supporter of the {{ill}} template in FACs ... you'll get an idea of my opinion from the discussion. Any thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm the one who mentioned you; said that you'd gotten several FAC promoted with the ill template (ukiyo-e and Katsudō Shashin were on my mind) in defense of allowing one in the nominated article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you just made the kids' Christmas! Congrats on the shiny new star! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure a bot is going to come by and repeat everything I say, but in a far dryer fashion. I've reviewed this article for GA, and found so many problems that it might take you three whole minutes to resolve. Once you relieve yourself of this burden, I will be happy to pass the article. Cheers! Resolute 00:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It must be a CanLit day—I notice you put Le chandail de hockey up for GAN. Just goes to say Canadians need pictures to get through their books, eh? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article The Playboy you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Playboy for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Resolute -- Resolute (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me the relation of Dreadstar and Dreadstar (comics), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The first is a series, and the second is a book. They're both "comics", so the dab is unhelpful—I moved Dreadstar (comics) to Dreadstar (graphic novel), and redirected Dreadstar (comics) to Dreadstar. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, - I asked you because you moved from novel to comics ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I guess I didn't realize the other article was there. "(comics)" is supposed to be the default dab, so an article shouldn't be at "(graphic novel)" or whatever unless it needs further disambiguation (which it does in this case). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see, - how would you word a hatnote ("the other article is there") which seems good for both? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of that, I linked to the other article in the body. The book was mentioned in the series article, but wasn't linked. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I miss Dreadstar, see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for The Sinking of the Lusitania (did I hear my Gertie name?) - de:Dreadstar, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These endless back and forth is weakening you argument. Let's get the discussion back on tract. Boghog (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So leave it the fuck alone? Nobody's forcing you to continue. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I offered to truncate this meaningless discussion. If you insist on continuing, I will also. You have repeatedly called me a liar based on twisting my words and faulty logic. Of course I will defend myself. Boghog (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (ec) You will be far more likely to persuade others of the merit of your arguments if you follow the suggestions for responding and in particular Try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith of other editors' actions. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You "offered" no more than to "allow" me to let your lies stand. If you want to end it, end it---which will require an end to your lies. Notice how none of the other deprecators are having these issues? This is because they don't resort to lying and gaming the system the way you do. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of posts may have not as clear as they could have been, but in no cases have I ever lied. Again, please assume good faith and please be civil. Boghog (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This has nothing to do with clarity. I assumed good faith with your first misleading post, and removed it as an error. Reverting the removal after becoming aware of it was the first clear act of bad faith. Refusing to allow the clearly inappropriate discussion to be collapsed---twice---the next. Aggressively continuing the discussion issue the collapse made it clear you were going to pursue your bad faith to the bitter end. Your lies at cite sign about points that were supposedly "dismissed" (and were empirically were not) were icing on the cake. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This has everything to do with clarity. Your accusations that I lied are based on overly literal interpretations. Furthermore it is very clear that I am assuming good faith and your are not. In the example that you raised above, all I said was "yup" and then in my next post I apologized when I said Sorry, I thought you were opening parallel threads. Please assume good faith.
• The comment Your question was already answered in the appropriate location, as you are well aware—thus demonstrating your bad faith. was by far the most aggravating because it was false. Repeating what I state before, my question was originally asked at the central discussion on 17:33, 28 April 2015, asked again here on 19:17, 28 April 2015, and then you finally answered on 21:23, 28 April 2015.
• I have already demonstrated good faith for apologized for the error I made. Now it is time for you to demonstrate good faith and apologize for your error. Boghog (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I assumed good faith with your first misleading post, and removed it as an error – Even if it contained an error, it is never acceptable to edit, much less delete someone else's comments on a talk page unless they are libelous or threatening. My post was neither. It was a simple mistake. The proper way to handle a simple mistake is to politely point it out, not to delete it. Boghog (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I again collapsed the extended discussions on Template talk:Cite isbn ‎because they contain borderline libelous accusations (i.e., dubious claims of lying). If even if these claims were true, how do they further your position? These extended discussions have become unnecessarily contentious, distracting and will drive away other editors. Please also note that in both cases, I let you have the "last uncollapsed word". We need to keep the discussion on a higher level. Boghog (talk) 13:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked you politely on your talk page to remove your misleading comment from the inappropriate location. Not only did you refuse, you dug in your heels, reverted attempts twice to collapse it, and continued with your aggressive filibustering outside the collapse. That is not the behaviour pof someone acting in good faith. Where I've accused you of lying stands---it is not a matter of interpretation, it is a clear-cut demonstrable lie. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I got anything out of Judenhass–lightweight yet heavy-handed, and really not in the least insightful. On top of that, we have the greatest letterer who ever lived resorting to ugly digital fonts—I thought Sim hated computers?!? Art Spiegelman calls this stuff "Holokitsch"—and I don't think it's professional jealousy. This thing gave me headaches, but I made myself read through it a second time after Sim announced he was putting it in the Public Domain.

The art is in Sim's "new" photorealistic style, which I don't hate but neither do I like. The text is very Sim—a manneristic style I admired when I was fourteen, but which has long since come to grate against my mind's ears. The book makes more sense as a document of Sim's self-isolating worldview than anything else, although that's not likely obvious if you haven't read much Sim.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• Did he have the JPGs up too? If we had a bit more resolution, this would make a good FPC nom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, he's put them up for download in .cbz and a .pdf, and these are from the .cbz. If I had a paper copy I might scan them, although Sim has kept religiously to printing on ugly grey newsprint, long after the rest of the industry has switched to decent paper. (I sold off most of my Sim floppies years ago—I only kept a few things that haven't been reprinted, and an issue of Cerebus that I had a letter printed in) Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although, now that I think of it, there are probably torrents or other downloads out there that would now be legal and might be higher-res. Scanned off crappy paper, of course. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a second—what do you mean by "the JPGs"? Aren't these JPGs? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The JPGs from which he made the PDF/CBZ. Guess not; all I got from the CBZ was the same file you uploaded. I'm uploading the PDF, though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get the feeling that Sim's the kind of guy who might donate higher-res scans if asked. I don't think I'm the right guy to ask, though, as I just finished slagging the work. Factoid: he announced long ago that he's donating his entire œuvre to the public domain upon his death. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • He apparently only accepts correspondence through snail mail. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, that's right, and if you want to correspond with him you have to sign his petition saying you believe he's not a misogynist first. Chester Brown refused to sign it, so Sim broke off their friendship. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            •  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Chester Brown page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I replied implicitly to your recent edit and question posed in Edit summary with this edit of my own. I thought you had a good point as to scale in the intro but that you'd overdone the cut a bit. I'm open to adjustments or dialogue or -- hopefully congenial -- contest.

With a brief glimpse of your page intro here you may also be interested in my first, earlier-today edit to the page. Again I'm open to exchange.

Cheers. Swliv (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swliv: There are a number of issues with the reference to the film. Ondaatje was a household name in Canada before the film came out—I was assigned The English Patient in high school (circa 1993–94?). Placing the mention of the film there makes it seem as if his claim to fame is the film. It's not. On top of that is the WP:PEACOCK wording "award-winning", which is not an appropriate description on Wikipedia. It is not an award-winning film; it is a film that won an award, and the award-winning is both tangential and irrelevant to Ondaatje's article—at least in the first paragraph of the lead, which should be about his achievements—which is, after all, what readers are looking for when they type "Michael Ondaatje" into the search box. As it is now, almost half of the lead is now dominated by that film.

I don't have any issue with your other changes. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't reassess scale per se in intro (it was down to less that a quarter, my rough est.) but I took out the offending phrase (while I think/work maybe further on your excoriation of it at least) and do appreciate your attention/further background. As to fame-claim, 'the writer whose book became The English Patient' is certainly for many in the world the beginning and end of potential author-awareness, I'd maybe say. And that's 'not that bad'; 'better than many'; et c. While Wiki is not out of course to pander to the limited-exposure Hollywood-or-wherever-only encyclopedia readership solely, I also feel it's worth not turning our back on that readership completely (as you did in your wholesale cut); in the interests of inclusivity and outreach. Cheers. 14:37.

Ps This page is getting big to use on mobile cellular at least. I worked out a rudimentary Archive on my User talk page a while back. It's better than tossing it, I think; Wiki saves it anyway as it ought, I think. Swliv (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Spring
	Yumeji Art Museum Hafspajen (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I've never been to Okayama—one of these days! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are so many people attempting to thwart my attempts to flood the Main Page with child porn? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. Who'd you rub the wrong way? (Pun intended) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: what does the character on my daruma doll mean? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's two characters: 福入 fuku-iri—loosely "let luck in". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just realized that "my" meant you actually took it. Why are you wasting such marketable skills on Wikipedia? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Need to get a portfolio ready . Though I must say, if I do finish a doctorate, it would be funny to have a photographer with a Ph.D. in literature. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That'd look some impressive on your business card! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dr. Crisco, the Photographer. Erm... maybe? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • Dr. Crisco, the Literate Photographer. You'd occupy a niche. *ducks* Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Here's what my boy—with his ever-so-refined tastes—has been reading lately: Kami-sama no Iu Toori. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • That is one unhappy daruma doll. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've noticed you keep bouncing back and forth between signatures these days. Having an identity crisis? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Something like that. Bounce bounce. Too much work, maybe.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rob Pike navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 08:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I was reviewing your FAC The Playboy, I kept noticing "Archived from the original..." in the refs. Would you be kind to an old buffer and explain the mechanics of this? Despite my senescence I understand why you do it, but the how is a bit more elusive. A short tutorial would be most gratefully received, here or on my talk page or wherever you might be kind enough to deliver it. Best, Tim riley talk 15:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you seen Help:Using the Wayback Machine or Wikipedia:Using WebCite? I see other editors promoting WebCite more often, but I prefer the Wayback Machine because (a) it's way easier (and doesn't require registration); and (b) it often already has an archive of the page you want (often multiple). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind, though, that there are websites that disallow archiving: you have to check that the page has actually been archived. Sometimes the "archived" page is a restricted access message. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 16:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excellent! Thank you for this. I'll experiment in a sandbox. Tim riley talk 16:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If that is what it says, obviously you are free to restore the repetition of the article title, but it seems self-evident to me that a subspecies table is referring to the species the article is about, rather than any other animal. It's also inconsistent when we don't do that in section headings or image captions unless I'm wrong on those too... I'll leave it with you to decide whether the current version of the headings is too unclear, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ukiyo-e may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• merchants had developed. These ''{{transl|ja|machishū}}''{{efn|{{nihongo||町衆|{{illm|machishū]]|ja|町衆}} }} }} allied themselves with the court and had power over local communities; their

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really impressive work on this article. It's one of the unique pleasures of editing Wikipedia to come back after an absence and see an article that you started expanded tenfold. Thank you. Lithoderm 06:15, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, wasn't that pleasant! Thank you back! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hu Zhengyan/archive1. I've implemented them - if you have any more improvements to suggest, please feel free! Yunshui ^雲_水 11:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, I've been meaning to get around to this. Ping me again if I don't. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm passing through anyway, consider yourself pinged. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a bunch of free time this afternoon, so hopefully I'll remember I've been pinged. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we had unexpected visitors this afternoon. I'll get to it, but it may be a day or two before I do. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 09:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found the time at breakfast this morning. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are very awesome, thank you so much. I've now dealt with pretty much all of the issues you raised. Much obliged! Yunshui ^雲_水 11:02, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curly,
"Ukiyo-e painting" in sensu stricto is "Ukiyo painting painting". Being a gnome of long standing, I've looked around for some re-directs that reflect the redundancy. And have found... bupkis.
That will not stop me from calling an ATM machine an "ATM machine", despite the redundant redundancy.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• WC closet. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tragic affliction... Yunshui ^雲_水 13:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if it's a redundancy, you'll have to blame the Japanese, because the translation is of nikuhitsu ukiyo-e. Just to split that hair a little finer, though: I know your dictionary lists "painting" as a valid translation of e (because it's how you would translate, say, Mone no e "Monet's painting"), but it really just means "non-photographic picture" (""Monet's picture"). And I just realized the Japanese nikuhitsu ukiyo-e page links to nikuhitsuga—a term which could technically be used with non-ukiyo-e painting, but in practice isn't. For some reason the Japanese page explains it using English terms ("painting", "print") even though they're all Japanese terms for a Japanese artform ... To make things more confusing, the translate kaiga as "painting", and then link to the kaiga page, which opens with a children's crayon drawing. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:23, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point I think it's the right thing to do to WP:PING @DoRD: (the renamed User:Department of Redundancy Department) renamed as @DoRD: because that's the right thing to do. Shirt58 aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Template:Other uses includes the text "For other uses, see Other uses (disambiguation)". What the actual fuck is going on these what the actual fuck recursively redundant recursive redundancies? Shirt58 aka --Shirt58 aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:07, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should probably stay away from the first story in John Barth's Lost in the Funhouse. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ChesterBrownForeshortenedInEmbarrasment.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curly Turkey, hope you are well. Interesting news about the Hergé Foundation (Moulinsart) came out yesterday. Read the section "Rights issue" in that article. This is bad news for Nick and Fanny Rodwell (whom the Tintin community has never much liked). I will keep watching for further developments. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. Dramatic. I'm not sure it's good news, unless you just hate Nick and Danny Rodwell. I was hoping he'd signed over the copyrights, in which case we'd start seeing Tintin books coming into the public domain sooner, but it looks like it's only the publishing rights. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:22, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading more about it, I guess it's Moulinsart's litigiousness that's the issue, in which case it is good news. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, everyone hates Nick Rodwell. There's much I could tell you, but not much that could be written in a neutral voice. Yes, this is gleeful schadenfreude news. Prhartcom (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a lot like the situations with the Joyce and Tolkien estates. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting part is that something new actually happened in l'monde de Tintin. Being a Tintin fan makes me essentially a history buff. I'm just wondering who that anonymous Tintin expert is ... Prhartcom (talk) 00:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's currently hiding from the Moulinsart drones. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or in the Tintin bibliographies ... Prhartcom (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Koyama Press requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Fiddle Faddle 07:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Turkey, how are you? The reason I'm calling you is that I need some advice what should I improve on Kill 'Em All. I've re-written in from scratch, but I'd like to hear second opinion on what might be missing or needs to be corrected. Appreciate your time.--Retrohead (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big thanks for the swift response. By the way, I've read some months ago that you were adding Billion Dollar Babies on your to-do list. I'll gladly review it if you plan to expand it.--Retrohead (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to do it, and if nobody else does I probably will eventually (that and the very sadly underappreciated Easy Action, which I think is every bit as good as Love It to Death and Billion Dollar Babies). I don't expect to get to it soon, though—too many artcles on my to-do list. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you reduce File:Metallica (1986) Welcome Home (Sanitarium) sample.ogg for one second?--Retrohead (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argh ... it's not actually 31s—it's rounded up. But whatever. I'll do it later—I don't have the file where I am right now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Turk, I don't mean to rush you, but can you do it by the end of the week? If you're not available, I can ask someone else in the meantime.--Retrohead (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's done. Frustrating though, because the file shows up as 30s both in VLC and when I check the "Properties" on my system, and the cut version shows up there as 29s. I cut less than half a second, though, so it ends up sounding pretty much the same. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Seth (1996) It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken (page 124 panel 4).jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Seth (1996) It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken (page 124 panel 5).jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article Per Holknekt that I have created. Any help is appreciated. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

THank you for your assistance. If you could, please take a look at the article Schloss Ahrensburg as well. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the article Forest Sami. Then I will stop bugging you. Thanks :)--BabbaQ (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I might have to put that off until later. As soon as my kids are done watching SpongeBob I'm giving my Dad a Father's Day call and then we're going out. I'll squeeze in what I can until then. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a question: what WP:ENGVAR are these articles in? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another: what's a "torn head"? Is that supposed to be "tower head"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Today, there are still forest Sami cultures present in the woods in Norrbotten and in Malå in Västerbotten: the source for this was published in 1952—hardly "today". Also, it says they still exist today, but the lead says the "were a Sami people". Which is correct? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De säges vara granlappar som utgöra skatt om året bland vildvaror /,/ fiskeskatt som är gäddor, sik, abborre. Men de andra som ingen fisk ränta förmältes i årliga längden kallas fjällappar, havande det namnet därav att de bo uppe i fjällen uti bergsskrevor, och komma till inga sjöar med mindre deras nabor granlapparna vele godvilligt efterlåta dem fiska med sig. ("It is said that granlappar should pay taxes for their hunting and fishing.")

I'm pretty sure that's not a translation of the whole quote. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For example, ten forest Sami villages near the town of Vittangi used the same name.: What is this an example of? And why would they have the same name? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the forest Sami had by that point become fewer than the Sami people: should that be "fewer than the fell Sami"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Inexperienced editors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 07:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. --TL22 (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, right, right, I did it to "sway consensus"—that makes so much sense! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, you are absolutely on point in the red link debate. I couldn't agree with you more. May I buy you a beer? --Lockley (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You may, but only on the condition that you help me finish it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clink! --Lockley (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Turkey, is it necessary the article to tell that Burton's band Agents of Misfortune featured future Faith No More guitarist Jim Martin and the sentence "Ulrich thought Kill 'Em All was a good name, and Zazula agreed."?--Retrohead (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd keep the second bit. The first bit is pretty trivial and tangential—but I don't think it would hurt to put it in an endnote. An easy way to do endnotes is with {{efn}} and {{Notelist}}. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your suggestion and thanks to the IP who added content. I've copyedited his writing a bit, and think it looks good now.--Retrohead (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought at first the IP might be you accidentally signed out, but reading what they added it was obvious it wasn't. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CT. I've been following the RFC at WT:FAC recently, and I'm starting to think that perhaps I'm going about this FAC thing the wrong way. Is there precedent for the sort of canvassing that's being suggested there? I'm considering adding links to the talkpages of interested WikiProjects to try and get some more activity on the Hu Zhengyan FA discussion, but it feels a bit - I dunno - sordid? Desperate? Beggarly? I would appreciate the opinion of someone more well-versed in FA protocols than me before doing so... Yunshui ^雲_水 13:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've gotten in the habit of notifying all WikiProjects an article is tagged with when I put up an FAC. I understand the "beggarly" feeling, but at the same time, why would you want to hide the fact that a Project's article is up from the people most likely to be interested in having their say? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See your point. I'll knock something together. Thanks for weighing in! Yunshui ^雲_水 14:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god—I love how the Swedes decribe Seth's fashion sense as "retrodrag". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Singular “they” and the many reasons why it’s correct" Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Red link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Are you kidding me? This edit summary is WAY out of line. — TAnthony^Talk 23:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesus fuck—the dildo who writes about masturbating introverts is me! Who the fuck do you think I was addressing?!? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't get that but, your language in that edit summary and now here is just not appropriate, if you're talking about yourself or not. You have a tendency to come off uncivil and aggressive in your comments and edit summaries as it is, but please try to restrain yourself.— TAnthony^Talk 23:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I will, maybe I won't—I doubt it will make a difference, given the widespread ABFing going on. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I apologize for jumping to that conclusion, but come on, you know very well that edit summaries like that and the f-word on your talk page just make you look bad, and are ammo for people trying to get you in trouble. It's not worth it.— TAnthony^Talk 23:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If people would learn some empathy, it wouldn't have to be. If they'd think "Oh, I'm upsetting him/her. Better not push anymore" rather than "Awesome, that **** said **** *** ** **** ************* *******, *** *******. I'm going to cause some **** at ANI and get that ******* blocked forever." then we'd reduce drama levels on-wiki by half, or more. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand you mean well by that comment, but I don't subscribe to it: one of the earliest tustles I got into on WP was when I used the word "whine"—turns out the other editor was female (with a username that wasn't obviously female), and interpreted it as a sexist remark (and I don't entirely blame her—it's not like such intentional aggressions don't exist). We're never going to agree where to draw the line, and context makes for moving targets anyways. For me, anyone who's going to get upset at a stray "fuck" should take it up with a professional, not ANI. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even I got it, - perhaps because we recently had a DYK about masturbating in a 1971 play, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my—live on stage? Where can I get a ticket? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See that only now. For 1971 it's too late, the pictured poster is of 2014, - I guess it will not be played much in countries other than German-speaking, but this was Cyprus. The play also features that the "old farmer" (as the DYK termed it, not by me) impregnates a minor and ends with her going in labour. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a hit! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• On a barely related note, are these real? Damn. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in, do these "shows" actually run on Japanese TV? Some of them actually look like they might, but that "Sing Karaoke While Getting A Handjob" definitely isn't—it was going around on Facebook and someone found out it was just porn done up to look like a regular TV show. It appears that #1 at least is for real—but on satellite TV, not over-the-air. I hardly ever watch TV (and I rarely stay up past midnight), but I've seen after-hours stuff—even over the air—that would blow you away (not actual porn, but stuff that makes some of those shows look plausible). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:36, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, Cracked.com, the second-best website in the world: Cited references to reliable sources, sarcasm, and humor! On the subject of this section: Curly Turkey does warn everybody on his userpage that he swears a lot, so stand back if you don't want to get any on you. Prhartcom (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It is... frightening... to think of what could possibly blow a veteran editor away. But then, knowing the depths of humanity's depravity, it's not surprising. I'd have thought number 1 to be a porn, to be quite honest...  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "blow you away" in the sense that it'd be hard to imagine some of this stuff on over-the-air TV anywhere else in the world, not necessarily in the sense of "Oh my God! I can't believe there are people in the world who would ..." For that stuff, you go to the J-porn section. dig around the internet for J-porn. Edited when I realized how 20th-century that made me sound. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd comment on how we usually use German porn for such jokes, but then realized that (as per our previous discussions) there is such a thing as "live action La Blue Girl". There are clearly things on this earth not meant for mortal eyes. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did I tell you that the first J-porn I ever saw—and I mean the very first, before I'd even seen so much as a picture of a Japanese nipple—was Return of the Overfiend? I'd just gotten a membership at a place that rented out anime (back when we still called in "Japanimation"), and I was still mostly unfamiliar with that stuff, so I asked the owner to recommend some. He pulled out Barefoot Gen, Battle Angel—and Overfiend, giving me a knowing smile and telling me not to let my mother catch me watching it. He didn't tell me a thing about it, and I never saw the box, so I assumed he meant it had Akira-level bloody violence ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• That is an interesting story. Wonder why demons feature so predominantly in H.... the earliest that I remember seeing is Bible Black. I was not impressed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow ... in multiple media ... it's a hentai porn franchise. I'm sure someone merely forgot to add the bits about the posable action figures, right? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Posable... action... figures... I'm afraid to ask, but they are... anatomically correct? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Borderline, but not technically incorrect. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Binky Brown Meets the Holy Virgin Mary page, your edit caused an archiveurl error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Curly Turkey, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know that I'm reviewing the article Little Annie Fanny which you seem to be a major contributor on. The nominator, Prhartcom, according to their user page, is on wikibreak so I am notifying you as well about it. I have placed the article on hold for 7 days pending some changes. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. Wugapodes (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I don't have all the sources he had, but I'll keep an eye on it and help out if I can. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've responded, but I wonder if Prhartcom's really on break—he put up that notice in April, and he sure seems to have made a lot of edits, as recently as today. I wonder if he just forgot to take down the notice. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes and Curly Turkey, I am angry at myself for forgetting to take my Wikibreak notice down. Below is a paragraph of my venting, but I must admit this is rather humorous also.

Wugapodes, please allow me to make a correction to your assumption. I did all of the research for this article and rewrote this article in its entirety myself. (Here is my sandbox version). I don't think Curly Turkey will mind when I say he is not a major contributor. After I completed my research, I deleted the previous, unsuitable version of the article, then I rewrote the article. I asked Curly Turkey to pre-review the article, which he was kind enough to do (I trust him as he is an expert on the subject). However, in addition to his helpful comments that he wrote to the Talk page, he also made numerous tiny edits to the article, each edit changing only a few characters. This is not the way I edit. I write, click Preview instead of Save, write some more, click Preview again, and repeat this process for sometime hours and then finally click Save. I complained to him at the time that others would see his name in the history so much more often than mine and fail to notice the number of characters I contributed in comparison, and assume he was the primary contributor. Now I see that this is exactly what has happened. And now, I am dismayed to see that I have left my Wikibreak notice on and find Curly Turkey, in good faith and only trying to be helpful, responding to the review as if he is the nominator. I fully understand there is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. But rarely have I put so much work into an article and I have been patiently waiting for the moment of its GA review for six months. Curly Turkey, thank-you kindly for your help, I am not ungrateful and I remain respectful, but I believe I would like to take over at this point! Prhartcom (talk) 07:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry about it—the nomination's in your name, so you'd still get all the credit. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I only just now finished reading Wugapodes' review. Thank-you for stating numerous times that I should have the final say. As I implied, I rarely get that opportunity! And I must clarify that I want you to continue to follow the review and interject your comments anytime. Now I must retire for the evening and briefly return to real life in the coming morning. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confident I've got the location in the photograph right, but if it's where I think it is, I lived for four non-consecutive years right in the middle of this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "You have no right to contest the decisions made by your betters."
• "Our opinions are irrelevant. Only the ruling class may make such determinations. You must remain subjugated to the law, to the government, and to the collective. Where would it all end, if people thought they could challenge government and rule of law? No one has any right to rally against the law. The law is the law, and must be adhered to. You have no rights, not one. What is willed by God will come to pass, whether one likes it or not. He views such arrogance with disdain. Let those with station do what they are to do, and those without do what they are to do. Accept your lot, as people have done for centuries."

I'd assume he was trolling if I hadn't seem him in action before ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 10:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's just... ugh. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, thanks for the notice, but all I did was some light copyediting! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:It's a Good Life, If You Don't Weaken for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Art Spiegelman you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say that I hope to have the review done in the next 24 hours or so. Sorry for the delay. Viriditas (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ed the Happy Clown you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw this edit which was part of removing the WSK language tests from the template. I don't understand what the edit summary means?

The WSK tests are administered by the Chinese in China but they test proficiency in English, French, German, Japanese, and Russian. The only language test to have its own distinct article is the Public English Test System (PETS) WhisperToMe (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the article Jenny Skavlan that I have created. I plan a DYK nom for it. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the article Linni Meister could also need a check. Always appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And Murder of Catrine da Costa that will appear in the OTD section of the main page in a few days time. Thanks!--BabbaQ (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ick ... could you give me something more pleasant next time? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 02:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:EdTheHappyClown4.gif. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Interior 15:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Art Spiegelman you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Art Spiegelman for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ed the Happy Clown you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ed the Happy Clown for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of BenLinus1214 -- BenLinus1214 (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:EdTheHapyClownCharacters.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Art Spiegelman you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Art Spiegelman for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Got any sources that would help covering the tradition here? Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The Japanese version of the article gives a couple of sources, and Google Books gives 149 results, although (a) they seem mostly to be in passing, and (b) almost none of them are viewable online. Almost all of them give the title as 放屁合戦 "Hōhi gassen" rather than 屁合戦 "He gassen", though (放屁 refers to the releasing of farts, whereas 屁 is a fart itself—the difference, I suppose, between a "farting battle" and a "fart battle"). If the issue is whether there are enough sources to justify having an article, I say without a doubt yes. If it's about how those sources are being used—I'd have to get out to the library to answer that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something about the Japanese article, though: it talks about a bunch of these "fart battle" scrolls, and uses the late-Edo one to illustrate the "tradition", rather than being about a single scroll. The earliest example it gives is one by Toba Sōjō from the 12th century. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ran into your screen name and immediately thought it must be a play on Cooley-Tukey (an FFT algorithm). After quickly scanning your talk page I guess not...so much for accidental similarities. Have a good day. Juan Riley (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I can promise you, the guy who gave me the nickname wouldn't know the Cooley-Tukey—or any other—algorithm. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Maus --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, thanks—I won't oppose this, but I'm not going to support it either, as I've long wanted to rework the "Themes" section into a more general "Analysis" section (a lot of work, though, as there's a great abundance of sources to work through, and not really any source I'm aware of that tries to sum them up). Someday I may create an Analysis of Maus article (there's more than enough material for it). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understand ;) - we have so many mushrooms and battleships, why not two Maus? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, which is why I won't oppose. Whether I actually get to the second Maus will depend on my caprice. I just feel the "Themes" section could be much stronger. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 22, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 22, 2015, I made some tweaks ... I'm not criticizing your writing style, I just think in general that a column (such as TFA) should aim for some consistency in style. See what you think. I hope I didn't introduce inaccuracies. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dank: Just two things with the current wording:

The book is postmodern, persistently self-referential and ironic—most strikingly in its depiction of Jews as mice, Germans as cats, and non-Jewish Poles as pigs.: this makes it seem like the anthropomorphism itself was ironic—at times, irony deflates the animal metaphor, by I wouldn't say it was overall ironic. I think I'd drop the "persistently" as well, not because it's inaccurate, but because it's a bit redundant.

Okay, what I'm trying to do here is preserve your wording (which is fine) while dealing with a readership that won't have a clear sense of postmodernism, and avoiding definitions or anything that sounds professorial. Would something along these lines work? "The book is ironic, self-referential, and postmodern—most strikingly ..." - Dank (push to talk)

I think that works better, but I don't think the irony is as prominent as the self-referentiality, etc—the word hardly even comes up in the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

with frequent flashbacks to the war years: probably two thirds or more of the book is these flashbacks—I'm not sure "frequent" gets that across.

See what you think now. - Dank (push to talk)

Yeah, that's good. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With Departures appearing next week, I guess I get two TFAs within a week of each other! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, we like to showcase our best talent. - Dank (push to talk) 22:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking us to uncharted lands, celebrate great victories, hear of harrowing experiences, and cross the threshold between life and death, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	It took a while - but thanks at least in part to your help, Hu Zhengyan finally made it to FA! Thank you so much for your assistance in getting it there. Yunshui 雲水 07:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A project for you perhaps. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm ... I'll take a peek, but not today—I'm going to be busy. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Two parallel mainstreams seem to have developed. One mainstream includes Marvel, DC (and very soon Image) and the other entails books that actually dominate the sales charts; in other words, the comics considered mainstream by comic readers and comics considered mainstream by statistics." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Turkey, may I ask for a suggestion on how to modify "the devil watches people killing each other, sure they will go to hell" (from Kill 'Em All#Music and lyrics) in order to be the devil who is sure (because it may appear it is the people who are sure with the current wording).--Retrohead (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "and is sure" would work, but there's probably something better. Go with that for now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gertie the Dinosaur, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Fox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of your favorite awkward manifestations of the English language! Is it always "comics" and never "comic"? Don't worry, I mostly know the answer, however I come to you with the question as the Little Annie Fanny article is undergoing a very helpful copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors and, while I know it should be "comics series" and "comics feature" and not "comic feature", I notice my own writing occasionally says "comic" ("the elaborate, fully painted comic" and "pencil roughs of each page of the comic") so I may be getting it wrong sometimes. After all, it is "comic strip", not "comics strip". So what do you think? It would help me the most if you would please go to this page and search for every use of the word "comic" and see if each appearance should instead be "comics". I want to get an understanding of this once and for all. Thanks! Prhartcom (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's "comics" when referring to the medium, so it's correct to say "comics writer", "comics publisher", "comics critic". In "the elaborate, fully painted comic" and "pencil roughs of each page of the comic", you're not talking about the medium. "Comics strip" and "comics book" would be logically more correct, but "comic strip" and "comic book" were well established long before the term "comics" (uncountable) became widely used to refer to the medium (which happened by the eighties—it's how Eisner used the term in Comics and Sequential Art).

In "the elaborate, fully painted comic" and "pencil roughs of each page of the comic", you're not talking about the medium itself, but individual manifestations of it. Think of it this way: "theatre" is a medium, and a "play" is a manifestation of it. A critic of the medium would be a "theatre critic", rather than a "play critic", right? So take "pencil roughs of each page of the comic" and substitute "theatre" and "play" into it: which sounds better, "pencil roughs of each page of the theatre" or "pencil roughs of each page of the play"? Since it's the latter, you're safe using "comic". Having said that, I avoid it because "comic" can be read in different ways (apparently "comic" is the preferred term for "comic book" in England, for example, and in certain circumstances the word can be read as "comedic", as in "comic novel"). I'd use a term such as "strip" or "work" to avoid confusion, but you're not "incorrect" to use "comic" there. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, God—you've got Miniapolis copyediting ... Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I appreciate that reaction; the copy edit was good, very helpful; I'll just restore some small changes, feel free as well. I also appreciate your knowledgeable instruction; I get it now: medium vs manifestation; good to know the history. Cheers to you, Prhartcom (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. We've gone to FAC with the Kurt Vonnegut article. Just a heads up. Cheers, --ceradon (talk • edits) 14:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• When was the change made? If it was after 2009, I don't think we should change the name in the article. (Also, I'm not a fan of the The Nikkei) — Chris Woodrich (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The J-version of the article says the name change was officially made on 1 January 2007. I don't think I'm a fan of any J-paper—no Sundays funnies. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (The joke was about the duplicated The. I believe we're supposed to nix the extra "the"). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ack! That's the result of a mass search & replace. Now fixed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I take it you've read the MOS on the infobox and MOS:LARGENUM too? $70m is correct, not $69.... And "over" is incorrect too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesus fuck you, you troll—you're seriously going to pull this shit again? @Crisco 1492: is there nothing we can do about this asslicker starting an editwar every fucking time he interacts with me? Especially when he's this fucking wrong—both with his ass-backwards and erroneous prescriptivism and his misreading of MOS:LARGENUM. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 13:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]