Troll lives here.

Amusing to me: [1]

 

| |

 

Hi Ceoil, Apologies for my abrupt revert on Keats.

The sentence: "He was the latest born of the great Romantic poets of English literature" intends to suggest that he was the last of the great Romantic poets (Coleridge, Byron, Shelley, Wordsworth..). It is phrased like this because although he was the latest born of all of them, they also all outlived him. So it's tricky to say he was the "last". There is a separate point to be made, perhaps, that he was also the youngest of the greats to find a measure of success in his life time (though arguably not much - his place in the canon of greats was awarded much, much later.) And that he died the youngest of them all - all adding to the Romantic myth of Keats. Maybe these are three points, then. Not sure if they all belong in the lead, if anywhere. I think to say "Keats was the youngest of the great Romantic poets" would need more detailing to make the point clear. What do you think?

I enjoyed your syntactical copy editing of the article - it adds to the ease of reading.

I think the piece needs more on the end of Brawne and Keats' relationship and a deal more on critique of his poems and letters. I have no ref books to hand this month - if you have any texts near you it would be a great boon to have your contribution...

Best wishes for the weekend. Spanglej (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to it. Spanglej (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most need section is probably a few paras on Posthumous Reputation. I have bits on this, we might work it up soon if you are on. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to cut back the Legacy section. Info on the Keats archive, the film about his life and the Keats-Shelley memorial prize seems important to keep... Maybe legacy isn't the right word... Article such as Yeats, Coleridge and Wilde have no mention of any contemporary legacy - purposely, I imagine. I'm not up on GA / FA protocols....

Spanglej (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll hold tough for the moment so and see how it developes. You are incumbent, and I do not want to step on toes. (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil - Spanglej (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry boy, I haven't been on Wp for weeks, so I just got your message. I'll check it out. Send me your email so we can communicate a bit more promptly - you can get my address from one of the girls. Or guess it - it's my first and last names separated by an @ symbol, followed by a .com! I'll take a look at Rogier van der Weyden for you and let you know if there is anything on him in Google.nl. As a taster, check this out: Kunst voor Dummies - http://books.google.nl/books?id=-5pvaXFNQOkC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=van+der+Weyden,+Washington&source=bl&ots=dHRH8l7KA6&sig=VrYCF_hLS9KZMq_ayjAIr7wlBwI&hl=nl&ei=OJ0BTNSzBo___AbfsbTJBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBg !

Other News, check out this cartoon http://www.biplane.com.au/~kauer/project/dog1.gif - it's apparently well known from the early days of social networking on the net. Slan Scartboy (talk) 23:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kunst voor Dummies? Nice. Is there a simple dutch wiki out there that I might catch up on? Ceoil (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< /deleted bullshit>

Don't let them provoke you, Ceoil... Our friend here doesn't know how to improve the article himself but he does know that sections without little floating blue numbers are double plus ungood. We will all keep our cool when we only communicate with each other through templates. Such is our ultimate goal, to transcend constructive discussion and editing by linking our comments to wikirules. Lithoderm 05:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< /deleted bullshit>

I've found citations for the quotes and restored the disputed sections. I'd try to tart them up some more but I know nothing of Sassanach literature. Le meas, 86.41.64.98 (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has reached a stage whererby I have the last word, and as such I belive this frank exchange can only go downhill. This is an unattractive prospect to me, and with that in mid, I am archiving. JNW, the usual measure are open to you of course, and good luck with that.

FYI, your name has been brought up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:G8crash3r has ignored a Final Warning about NPA Active Banana (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack as you did at Folly, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. I note that in 2 edit summaries you've called an edit vandalism because it removed "was blessed with". Combined with what I see on your user page, it's clear that you need to rein back and read WP:AGF and WP:NPA (again if you've read them already). Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? My edits to folly: [2] [3]. rv was only summary in both cases. Where do get vandalism from, unless you can see something I cant. And also, how exactly is not One would think that a "regular" would know that content in articles needs to be properly sourced and that one shouldnt remove cleanup tags (while including deceptive edit summaries) without actually addressing the issues NOT a PA. "your disruptive comment at folly" - You seem to be parashuting infrom the User:G8crash3r thing, which actually has FUCK ALL to do with me. Back off Dougweller. Ceoil (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly on my userpage are you combining in you wise mind bty? Ceoil (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misunderstood what you were doing, but I seriously suggest you cool it. G8crash3r's been blocked. If you revert for any other reason than vandalism, you should explain your reason, not just put rv - we know you're reverting. I'll tell you what, I'll strike the warning. The advice about reading the links stands though, even if struck. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An accusation of vandalism is not to be implied without reason, and no reason is no good FUCKING reason to send an editor of 4 or 5 - I forget - years a warning that they are about to be blocked on high without furter warning, because you have second guessed them. I suggest, you cool it, or apologise, or get lost. I dont care which. Ceoil (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G8crash3r's been blocked. Really. And I care why? I know who G8crash3r's is, how? Or is that an implied treath. Some neck. Ceoil (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)And now I'm regretting striking the warning. I've just seen your edit where you say " Fuck you and your basic wikipedia foundational principles. I've written around 20 FA's, more or less, and have fairly good idea how all this works, where it came from and where it is going. You are just a wikilayering serf who needs boxes, policies and bullet points -rather than thought" - after 4 or 5 years you should know better. (just as you should know about proper edit summaries). You may have written good articles, that doesn't entitle you to make that sort of comment. You raised the issue of G8crash3r. There's no chance I would block you myself, by the way, I'd just raise the issue of your behaviour. Hopefully that won't happen. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expalin again the proper edit summary thing, where I have to allow for the presumption by you (you actullay wrote 'we') might assume that I am presuming that edit I am reverting is vandelism. Think about that. Again, I suggest you cool it, or apologise, or get lost. Ceoil (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologize for assuming that your use of "rv" as an edit summary when you removed clean-up templates was attempting to "hide" your action under the disguise pf "revert vandalism" rather than merely standing for "re-vert" or some other abbreviation in the wikipedia alphabet soup. Active Banana (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Active Banana. That explains the misunderstanding, I was genuinely puzzled. I applogise for calling you a serf. You are not a serf. Just, next time you want to tell me something, use words and not things that begin with and end with {{}}. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The next time you make a personal attack, bad faith assumption or an edit that is uncivil (even in so far as editing others comments without their permission), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people, and do not edit edit others comments. I suggest you re-read WP:TALK, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content - Content has nothing to do with this as you are not a content guy.[4] You were stirring the pot, rubber necking and I called you on that. Are we clear? Good. Block me now; its been real. I suppose its my time. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition (har) - I only AGF with thoes with the form to deserce it. You do not. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very sad. I don't know where your frustration is coming from. I am aware of the misunderstanding about your rv-edit summaries; I didn't think it was an issue. But that doesn't mean you get to take out your frustration on everyone else. I don't want to see you blocked, but I don't want to see you engaging in that sort of conduct either - at the end of the day, it's up to you on how you are going to proceed. I hope you think about what it is you're doing, and I hope that editors that do get along with you persuade you to step away from this self-destruct path that you seem to be treading. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. This banna guy added fact tags on Erza Pound and I reverted, a couple of times I suppose. It got heated and he followed me to another article. This made me sad. I reverted him on that article, twice admittadly, with the edit summary 'rv'. That made the banna gut sad as he assumed it meaned 'revert vandal. So sad was he, that he brought it up on an unrelated wiki alerts page, and it was spotted by thre valient Dough, who did then give me a final warning in tempaled form. I was puzzeled and I asked - what the fuck, Doug. Realising his error, he shifted and said that, more or less, my edit summary 'rv' was insufficiently clear, and that anyway I am a bit of a prick and should watch my step in genearal, and bty way the wikialert guy is now blocked, and that is they way the wind is blowing. In his confusion he had maligned me on the alerts page, and later clarified but did not strike, as he had to go to bed. So I struck for him. Enter you, tail wagging but clueless. And here we are now. So block me or get lost. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you are wrong; I wasn't clueless. I know why you were striking, but I wasn't convinced you knew that it's not appropriate to do so. It is always better to ask the person to do it themselves, or if you struck the comment in a worst case scenario, the minimum you need to do is at least let the other person know that you did and make sure that they are OK with it when they come back. When people forget to do one of these steps, more misunderstandings develop and that creates another dispute and the cycle starts all over again. I've seen some people revert that sort of thing on the spot when someone edits anothers comments, so that's another reason why extra care should be taken. If you had only the following 2 choices: letting Dougweller know about your edit and then getting on with content editing, or the choice of not letting Dougweller know and then spending lots of time defending yourself in dispute resolution, which would you choose? Had it been the former choice, you could have avoided the need for all of this talk here and on Dougweller's talk page (let alone warnings, blocks or anything else). In any case, I hope you do take it on board for future and change your style of interaction for the better. Good luck in any case, Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus christ he had said he was going to bed. What at this stage is you point. The embers are dimming - think fast. And if you think I am going to assimilate advice from you - from what I've seen tonight not likely - I think you are concocted form a particularly unattractive broil of arrogance and naievity. Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]