User talk:Victoriaearle/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Claude François de Malet

I've had a quick look at the article. It's currently being copyeditted, but its obviously no longer a stub. There are some superficial changes that would improve the look - for example tidying the references (you can point several references to a single line using the full < ref > syntax; the bibliography could be put in a separate section; consider the several redlinks - can they be resolved to a bluelink, or should they not be linked at all? In general we no longer link dates, though that remains a widely unimplemented policy. I will have another look ina few days and reassess if you like. welsh (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To change the status you can place a request for an independent review at the relevent wiki project (eg WP:BIO or WP:MILHIST). It may not be fully in the spirit of independent assessment, but you could actually reassess the article yourself to Start status by editing the Talk page, since its no longer a Stub. It all depends how formal you want to be, Personally I'd be less formal and anyway someone will revert any change they don't like. It usually sorts itself out in the end. welsh (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

editing IB page

Hi Truthkeeper-I keep making suggestions in the discussion page, but I am reluctant to make any edits on the IBDP page because I am not familiar/comfortable with the protocol just yet. I noticed an error on the CAS section, where it says it needs to be completed within one year (but it should read two years). http://www.ibo.org/diploma/curriculum/core/cas/index.cfm "Students are expected to be involved in CAS activities for the equivalent of at least three hours each week during the two years of the programme." Can I go ahead and edit something like that or would you be willing to do it? Cheers La mome (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi La mome -- thanks for noting the CAS error. I'll fix it tomorrow. Also, thank you for providing the supporting reference. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper - I was wondering if you would gravitate back to the IB DIploma page. It's getting to the point where ObserverNY is getting way off track with not only editing but basic comprehension of the IB documents and responding to questions. The latest is that ObserverNY has taken offense at me using the phrase Weasel Words and has taking it personally that I am calling her/him a Weasel. I know we should support neophytes but I get the feeling that ObserverNY is either obtuse or being deliberately difficult. Let me know what you think. --Candy (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and intended to link WP:weasel but got caught up working on two other articles. I'll try to get back to the IB article later -- am very backed up at the moment. The biggest problem, in my view, is that the talk page guidelines are being abused. Editors shouldn't have to spend such a great amount of time clarifying policies. If it were one issue per day it'd be manageable, but this is over-the-top. How about adding the soapbox banner to the top of the talkpage? And, also, we need to invite NPOV experienced editors to help.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Have been thinking of inviting some experienced editors myself. I'll see what I can do. In RL I'm on my busiest 5 days. Thanks for your help. --Candy (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome

Thanks to you too for hanging around this pungent issue! The technical stuff is easy, finding consensus amongst the various viewpoints - woah! Ewen (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems. I'm working on four different articles so the IB issue doesn't bother me much, though it is endless. Have you worked on the MYP article? It's disappeared and I'd like to revert to a previous version rather than starting at the beginning. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The IB Middle Years Programme? Well, I took out the bit about US and UK grades but nothing else. The history is fascinating - it must be one of the few articles that's consistently gotten shorter over time! Beats me. Ewen (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. Looks as though somebody wiped it. I'll try to bring it back to life from a previous iteration. Working on cleaning up the citations on the IBDP and then adding missing references. It's slow going. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Slow going but very much appreciated! Many thanks. Ewen (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, congratulations on the Barnstar. You deserved it! I'm lost in salvaging a terrible article about a favorite author Sharon Kay Penman, who coincidentally writes about Wales. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that's a long-service medal. I awarded it to myself! It's basically for not going away - which (as Lemmy pointed out) you can also say about The Clap. Ewen (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you are patient (which is the same as not going away) so you have deserved the barnstar. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Plus working on a good article for somebody who wants FA status, so the IB stuff is peripheral. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos edits

Hi Truthkeeper88! I am very happy that you are fixing my poor English. Keep up the excellent work! Just one minor comment: In the "church" section you replaced The Swiss father and composer Martin Schmid with The Swiss composer Martin Schmid. The word "father" here was supposed to refer to (Jesuit) missionary priest. Schmid, like many missionnary priests, had many "professions" (composer, architect, priest,...). To reduce him to a "composer" would go too far in my opinion. I'd rather say that he was a "father/missionary priest" since that was why he came to Chiquitania. Could you add back the proper English term ("father" or "missionary priest" or "Jesuit" or ...) as I am not sure which is best. bamse (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So sorry!! I thought you meant father as in father of children, but of course you meant priest. I'll fix that. I love your article and believe it deserves FA status!! Please don't hesitate to let me know if I hack away too much! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick question on your recent edit: Consequently the missionaries founded their settlements further and further east towards the Paraguay river, and those south of Asunción moved closer to the Paraguay river by establishing missions farther north and west, thereby avoiding the impassable Chaco region. Which motion to the west do you mean? To me it looks almost straight north up to Corumbá. Maybe the start of this sentence would be more clear as (added text in italics): "Consequently the missionarie from the Chiquitos missions founded their settlements..." bamse (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AD

Hey! How's Alex Deleware going?--Kojozone (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Still searching for references for five books/plot summaries, but getting there. I decided to leave as is for now, but with more references and more time may rework into a more comprehensive, less plot summary driven article. Btw -- I left some references on the Frances Hamerstrom page. We seem to keep crossing paths. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

^^ true, I'm working backwards from the oldest backlogs. There are only 5 articles left in april '07 and 26 in May. But it seems for one article you copy-edit there another article is added somewhere else. - I might try and re-write that awful article about that count from Switzerland. The German article on which it's based seems much more meaningful and more to the point. At the moment you don't have a clue what the article is about.--Kojozone (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the Swiss count article. Sounds like what happened with the Delaware article -- some of them require an entire rewrite. I fell into Pixie/Fairie land yesterday. Who knew!! I might give that one a shot if it's still up. Gave up on the Boy Scouting in Connecticut but might get back to it, Social Networking needs an entire rewrite as does the one about the TV station. Oh, well. Happy copy-ediitng! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That bloody KOMO-TV article, I know. I didn't even touch it because it's so long. And don't talk about Scouting there are so many articles about councils and camps and lodges, it's crazy :D--Kojozone (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jesuit missions map

Hi! I found and uploaded a nice map which shows the Chiquitanía in more detail including roads/trails. It is from 1789, so shortly after the expulsion of the Jesuits. However there are already three maps at the start of the article, so one should go out I guess. I'd like to keep the first (topographic) map since it is the most precise and modern of the maps. Which of the other two, the 1705 South America map or the 1732 Paraguay/Chiquitos map should be replaced? Or could we have four maps? bamse (talk) 13:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Very hard question. The 1705 map that shows the entire continent (and is colorful) should be kept. I can't decide between the new map and the 1732 map. The new map (1789) shows the specific region in great detail, and marks the missions/villages. The 1732 map specifically indicates the region/province to be under the control of the Society of Jesuits. Both are important. Too bad you can't us all the maps: 1705,1732 and 1789. Sorry this isn't much help, but I really can't decide. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I leave it out for the time being. In any case the new (1789) map can be found through the commons link at the end of the article. bamse (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A good decision re: the map.

I've gone through the entire article and seem to to be finished, with the exception of the "Expulsion" section. Here are a few things to consider for consistency:

• the word center/centre appears in both British and American usage. Should be made consistent.
• the abbreviation for priest in English is "Fr." and for brother is "Br." -- in German the abbreviation appears to be P. for Pater. In my view, priests such as Schmid deserve the appropriate honorific. In some cases I've inserted priests into the text, although I'm not certain whether all the Jesuits in the villages were priests, or whether some were brothers, so you may want to check those edits.

That's all I can think of for now. Will check back again in a few days. Thanks again for allowing me to change the text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I will change to American "center" and figure out who was priest and who was not. A "brother" would be the same as a Friar? Can I assume that all the Jesuits are brothers? bamse (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Found only one "centre" so that was fast. Will need some time for the titles. bamse (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Initially I assumed (incorrectly) that all Jesuits are priests. But, apparently not all have taken orders, and therefore are brothers/friars (if living outside a monastery). Interesting that the Friar article doesn't mention the Jesuits, but it does mention the origin of the word as Frere, or brother. Anyway, my suggestion is to add Fr. (for Father) to the Jesuits you know are priests, such as Schmid, and then perhaps leave the rest as is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I generated a list of all the Jesuits that appear in the article (quite some). I assume that Spanish "P." stands for "padre" or priest (correct?). Most are indeed priests as you can see. I am not yet sure about the last four, though I believe that Zipoli was a brother. There were a few misspelled names in the article which I corrected. bamse (talk) 23:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Very nice list. Hans Roth was a priest as this website indicates:

In 1972, he sent to San Rafael a Swiss architect and then-Jesuit priest, one Hans Roth. Fr. Plattner gave Roth six months to begin the restoration, along with round-trip air fare. Roth arrived and never went back.

in the section titled Their Preservation: The Genius of Hans Roth. I can't remember whether you have this site in your bibliography, but I did remember reading about Roth when when I was investigating the Swiss chalets and their similarity to the churches. Anyway, perhaps a lot of work, but I think adding the honorifics will make the article better, which is the aim. Hope you agree. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know that page (it's also in the bibliography), I was just confused by "...and then-...". Does this mean, that he was later not a Jesuit priest anymore or that Roth was already a Jesuit priest when he was sent to San Rafael? I'll add "Fr."-s tomorrow. bamse (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence means "at the time." Having taken orders Roth wouldn't cease being a priest, but his avocation changed to rebuilding the churches. At least that's my interpretation.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. So he was "at the time" a "practising" priest. bamse (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I added "Fr." to the names of all the priests up to "The Jesuits in Chiquitanía had a secondary objective...". Now I am not sure if that is what you actually wanted as it looks a bit strange to me. Should the "Fr." be replaced by the word "priest" where it sounds better; like "...was founded in 1691 by the Jesuit Fr. José de Arce." -> "...was founded in 1691 by the Jesuit priest José de Arce." (but keep the "Fr." in sentences like: "...the missionaries Fr. Caballero and Fr. Hervás reestablished the mission..."?) Also is there something like "Frs." to write "...the missionaries Frs. Caballero and Hervás"? bamse (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think if it sounds better it should be priest (which was what I did yesterday, until I began to wonder whether they were all priests.) Honestly I'm not sure about the plural. Sorry to put you to so much work, but I'm wondering whether it's possible to only use the "Fr." once per name to denote rank, and then for subsequent occurrences only use the surname without the "Fr." I'm a bit busy today, but will have time to look at the article later. I also want to drag out my Chicago Manual of Style to see what the guidelines are for such an article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I added either Fr. or "priest" to the first occurence of every priest that I am sure of (I still don't know if Mesner and Cardiet were priests.) Please let me know if I messed up. bamse (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the Chicago Manual of Style: the overuse of any abbreviation (such as Fr.) is discouraged, but usage is up to the editor's discretion. So, you were correct to note that it looked wrong, and I think adding either Fr. or priest to the first occurrence of the name will do the job. I'll reread the article in few hours (or hopefully sooner.)Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks. Btw, is a "father" (as in front of "Mesner" and "Cardiet") the same as a "brother" or the same as "priest"? Several sources say that Mesner was a priest. bamse (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One more question concerning the German/Swiss priests, should we write Johann, John or José Mesner. Along the same lines, should it be Julian instead of Julián Knogler and the first name of Fr. Streicher was originally not Miguel either I'd guess. (cannot find him as "Michael Steicher" though) bamse (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good question about the names. Domenico Zipoli's name appears to be Italian, so for consistency, I'd tend toward Johann Mesner and Julian Knogler. Streicher is problematic without a source and I'd say up to the discretion of the editor.

As for the previous question: father is the same as a priest; a brother is not a priest (I believe).

I've re-read and it's looking quite good. I still see a few sentences with passive verb tenses that should be changed, but I'd like to wait until the "Expulsion" section has been looked at, and then I can have one more complete run through if that's fine with you.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly fine plan. Thanks a lot already for the great job you are doing. I just changed names to Johann Mesner and Julian Knogler and asked about Miguel Streicher the people at German wikipedia Amberg article who were very quick to reply. As you can see his name was indeed Michael. Will fix this in the article now. bamse (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, got very involved working on a different article and lost track of time. I see the response from the Amberg discussion, so that's good, and they've provided good verification. I'll keep an eye on the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For all the good work improving the IB articles' links, etc; while under heavy fire from all sides. Ewen (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ewen!!

Expulsion

I asked a few members of the history wikiproject for comments on the reasons for the expulsion, but no reply yet. Also started to generate a small list of reasons with references. Feel free to add to it if I missed something. bamse (talk) 23:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at these and see what I can find. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've found this book that seems to explain the situation fairly well. I took a screenshot, but don't quite know how to upload, or the destination for the upload. Anyway, page 203 explains the reasons for expulsion quite concisely, so I'd think that is a good source. Will keep looking. In the meantime, I'll start a list in my sandbox (which is a very messy sandbox because I'm experimenting with images, but I have a section devoted to the Expulsion.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the reason for expulsion according to Richard Gott was Enlightenment. I think that is the official view of the catholic church as well. bamse (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the Enlightenment (and of course the earlier Protestant Reformation) were the main causality. But there are some specific events leading to the expulsion (some of which you already have in the article.) I've created a working outline (that can be collapsed into a few sentences) at the top of my sandbox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at your sandbox (good job). I agree that Enlightenment ideas are probably the basis for the later conflicts. To answer 6., none of the villages was in the Chiquitos. The missions that were transferred from Spanish to Portuguese control were the Misiones Orientales. I am not sure what you mean by 2. ("War between Spain and Portugal"). How would a war between Spain and Portugal be a reason for the expulsion of the Jesuits? There was a war between Guarani tribes + Jesuits against Portugal + Spain in 1756 (Guarani War). That would be number 5 in your list I guess. I will have a look if I can find sources for 8, though that would be more interesting for the Portuguese missions. Do you think, that "material wealth" and the fact that the Jesuits virtually owned large amounts of land in South America played a role for the expulsion? bamse (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The 1758 conspiracy is known as Távora affair. ([1]) bamse (talk) 10:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification -- one of sentences in Gott reference confused me. I've renumbered the outline. To answer your question: I do think the Jesuit expansion in the New World (both South and North America) as well as other places, signified a threat to Portugal, Spain, and to a lesser extent France. If verified with a reference, then your "Expulsion" section can begin with a short sentence to the effect that the Jesuits were threatened due to economic reasons (or some such), then an explanation of the Treaty of 1751, and so on. If it can be wikilinked then not too much explanation is needed to maintain focus on specific topic in the article. Tomorrow I'll start work on some possible opening sentences in my sandbox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In number 8 on your sandbox, "Spain"->"Madrid"? Pages 28-30 in [2] describe the situation around the Tavora affair and just before it. The first sentence on page 28 (Given the background...) also hints at economic reasons for the conflicts with the Jesuits. The text of the treaty of Madrid is found here. Unfortunately I don't read Portuguese. Please let me know if you need more references. I don't have access to any non-open scientific journals though. bamse (talk) 14:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there are enough references. I've started to work on a rough draft that can be streamed into the existing text here. For now references are in parentheses. This will need a few days to get the chronology right without getting too wordy. Feel free to copy the rough draft out of my sandbox. I'll let it ferment in my brain for another day, and return to it tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Great job! I copied it to User:Bamse/sandbox#Expulsion_text and fixed the chronology at the beginning. The Guarani war of 1756 was a result of the Treaty of Madrid not the other way around. Other than that, I only added wikilinks and some extra info (name of tribes and location of transferred missions to distinguish them from the Chiquitos missions). bamse (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice! In sentence #3 the word "order" (referring to Jesuits) should either be Jesuits or the Society of Jesus. I'll look at the text and figure out where to stream in the newly written material, but I think the first few sentences simply can be replaced. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

On my sandbox I changed "order" to "Society of Jesus" and added citation templates for Gott and Maxwell. Also fixed some of the wikilinks and changed "spring" to "February 27". I still have doubts about two dates (marked by '???' in the text). The riots happened already in spring 1766, so probably the accusitions also happened in 1766. This [3] book has a good summary of the events in Spain starting on page 118. It also says that the Jesuits were expelled from France in 1764 (not 1762). bamse (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Riots were in 1766 (according to Gott and Ganson.) (Sorry, the sentence in my sandbox was a mess: I'd flipped it around three or four times and somehow didn't save the final version.) The French expulsion is interesting: two year difference according to which source you use. Typically the most recent source is considered the more accurate, which would be Ganson I think (copyright 2006). It's getting there! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the riot date to 1766, the French expulsion to 1764 and added as reference Ganson. Also changed Chiquitos->Chiquitania in the last sentence, since the expulsion order was not aimed at the Indians (=Chiquitos) but at the Jesuits living in the Chiquitanía region. Shall we replace everything from "During the political battle ..." until "... which was under Portuguese rule." ? bamse (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Keep "At the time of the expulsion..." but replace the two sentences above. Once it's all streamed together the new section will need a new paragraph structure, (to avoid an excessively long para) but that's easy to fix. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hope I did not mess up the references. bamse (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfect! The references seem to be fine. I think I've done all the copy-editing necessary for this article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks a lot. I nominated the article at Good article candidates. bamse (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi. I saw your name over at the GOCE. Could you take a look at Fritz the Cat and see if it needs any work done? Thanks. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Sure, I'll have a look at it, and then respond on your talk page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the sloppy writing. I took out "best known", which was intended to mean that Fritz the Cat is well-known. Reading it as "best known" probably implied for some readers that most of the comix somehow disappeared from existence. Sorry for that confusion! I also clipped the sentence about the original incarnation of the character from the lead. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC))

Re: International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme

Sorry I've not got back sooner - recently I've not been online as much as normal. I did have a quick peek at the talk page, and there seemed to be a fair bit happening! I couldn't work out which part in particular you'd need a fresh opinion on (and there are plenty of parts where I'd be quite happy to avoid butting in!)

If you still think my opinion(s) would be helpful, let me know where in particular and I'll drop by.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a "soapbox" banner for the talkpage would be helpful. Can any editor put up one? If so, could you point me toward the markup? If not, can you place the banner on the talk page? Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In short - agree; don't know; I'll find out and reply; if you don't I will ;-) Hope that's clear! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clear. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted on the help desk - I assumed a template would be easy to find, but a search on "soapbox" in "template-space" only yielded 5 items, none what you're looking for. Hopefully the Help desk regulars can steer us in the right direction.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Busy helping with copy-editing and can't spend time on IB talk page. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I did IB a while ago YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything specific or just to comment on things to improve? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice edits, thanks. Just need to start editing and stop talking without edit wars, but better the past two days. The article has been getting too bloated and every change resulted in an edit war. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Could have sworn I replied earlier, but apparently not! I posted on the editor's talk page suggesting that they be more cautious. Re: this, I think you're correct - if I understand correctly two editors were involved closely with the USC case, on opposing sides. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No reply until now. Yes, apparently something is going on -- but I think it has to do with the ACLU and not necessarily the two editors. Presumably one is from NY, not PA. I looked up the ACLU case in USC and the same solicitor litigated intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania and won. I think that's what's going on here. Yesterday I deleted content from every section of the IB DP article to tighten the article, but only the one section has resulted in an edit war. So, I've restored it, but believe it will continue to cause problems and merits attention. Cheers.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I have no idea why you keep drawing this erroneous conclusion about Intelligent Design, but I assure you, that has absolutely nothing to do with the "war" between myself and the one or two editors from PA. It is, and always has been, about IB. They are pro, and yes, I am opposed to the program in American PUBLIC schools, but my purpose in attempting to contribute to the article is merely to have it presented without ANY POV, just the facts. I apologize for being new, you have to admit it would take weeks to read every single Wiki policy and feature. I resent being made the constant target by the other "camp" and really wish it would stop. Again, I am happy with the way the article stands right now and I would be interested in your opinion of the current status of the IBDP article as well. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Copyedit request

Hi User:Truthkeeper88,
I wanted to know if you could help me copyedit The Naked Brothers Band (TV series) article.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I currently cannot edit the article, because I'm getting a bad connection, but the sentence where you switched in the "...Documentary cameras follow the band-members as they deal with adolescence encounterments..." to "...adolescence experiences" is already used in news articles and I don't want to copyright the same text, so could you change it back to encounterments. Also, when you said the first episode—I mean if you are referring to the first episode and not the pilot episode—I don't think its necessary, because the entire first season they were the same age. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 15:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanx! But, encounterments is a real word; I don't have a problem with you rewording it though, although "experiences" I wouldn't recommend. Thank you for taking the time to looking it over. ATC ^{. Talk} 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh... I looked it up, I was thinking of "encounter" NOT "encounterment". http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encounter . I think I thought the add on was grammatically correct, I was wrong. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit suggestion response

1. I would go with past tense verbs, if thats better.
2. Instead of using e.g. "2nd", "3rd"... I'd rather use "second", "third"...
3. What should be the alternative way to state e.g. "pull pranks"?
4. I agree, that's probably the biggest problem with the article, the sentences in the "Main cast" and "Recurring stars" are not grammatically correct.
5. Well in the "Filming" section its not all quotes and its not copied word-to-word, so if you think it needs to be written you could do that.
6. If its over wikilinked, that'll be a good idea to look at. I want to add more citations, because some sections are not even sourced or referenced.
7. I am slowly working on making the references have "citenews" and "citeweb".

Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 12:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your persistent and diligent copyediting of Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos. bamse (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme

Sorry I've not got back sooner - recently I've not been online as much as normal. I did have a quick peek at the talk page, and there seemed to be a fair bit happening! I couldn't work out which part in particular you'd need a fresh opinion on (and there are plenty of parts where I'd be quite happy to avoid butting in!)

If you still think my opinion(s) would be helpful, let me know where in particular and I'll drop by.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a "soapbox" banner for the talkpage would be helpful. Can any editor put up one? If so, could you point me toward the markup? If not, can you place the banner on the talk page? Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In short - agree; don't know; I'll find out and reply; if you don't I will ;-) Hope that's clear! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clear. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Posted on the help desk - I assumed a template would be easy to find, but a search on "soapbox" in "template-space" only yielded 5 items, none what you're looking for. Hopefully the Help desk regulars can steer us in the right direction.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Busy helping with copy-editing and can't spend time on IB talk page. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I did IB a while ago YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything specific or just to comment on things to improve? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice edits, thanks. Just need to start editing and stop talking without edit wars, but better the past two days. The article has been getting too bloated and every change resulted in an edit war. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Could have sworn I replied earlier, but apparently not! I posted on the editor's talk page suggesting that they be more cautious. Re: this, I think you're correct - if I understand correctly two editors were involved closely with the USC case, on opposing sides. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No reply until now. Yes, apparently something is going on -- but I think it has to do with the ACLU and not necessarily the two editors. Presumably one is from NY, not PA. I looked up the ACLU case in USC and the same solicitor litigated intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania and won. I think that's what's going on here. Yesterday I deleted content from every section of the IB DP article to tighten the article, but only the one section has resulted in an edit war. So, I've restored it, but believe it will continue to cause problems and merits attention. Cheers.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I have no idea why you keep drawing this erroneous conclusion about Intelligent Design, but I assure you, that has absolutely nothing to do with the "war" between myself and the one or two editors from PA. It is, and always has been, about IB. They are pro, and yes, I am opposed to the program in American PUBLIC schools, but my purpose in attempting to contribute to the article is merely to have it presented without ANY POV, just the facts. I apologize for being new, you have to admit it would take weeks to read every single Wiki policy and feature. I resent being made the constant target by the other "camp" and really wish it would stop. Again, I am happy with the way the article stands right now and I would be interested in your opinion of the current status of the IBDP article as well. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Question about uploading a photo

Hi Truthkeeper88,
I wanted to upload this photo [4] from this newsmagazine [5] for The Naked Brothers Band television series section "Filming".
I also wanted to upload this photo [6] from the same newsmagazine for The Naked Brothers Band television series section "Editing".
I wanted to ask you first if it was copyright infringement, as I don't want to create any of the sort.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but those would be copyright protected. Thanks, btw, for the response re: the copyedit suggestions. Will leave the banner on the article for now, but may have to be away for a day. You're doing a fantastic job with the references! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanx! As a curiosity would you know anywhere that you could search for free-use copyright pictures, as their is some on article, which I don't know how user's get them. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

They're on the Wiki commons. Go to the community portal (right, below the search field), scroll down and look for the link to the "commons" on the right (ish) and follow that, and then you can search. I have to log off now, but will have a look around when I get back if you can't find anything. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, now I know where to look for photo uploads. Um... I looked and their is only a logo of theirs that is never really used, and copyright infringement of a band member, that will most likely be deleted soon; Melanie Mayron, a director for the NBB, who co-starred on Thirtysomething with the boys' mother Polly Draper (creator of NBB); and Draper's brother Tim; and Allie DiMeco (Rosalina). Basically, none of them have relevance to anything with the show itself. Is their a way you could look online for free-copyright use, and upload - i tried looking and don't think i was successful. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can not get a hold of the images from TV.com that you linked me to, because their is protection guarding the pictures, so I can't grab it. I tried going to http://www.wiremage.com/ to get a hold of the photo, but you either have to be registered to the site or pay for the images. Are you sure, because of these situation that its not copyright infringement. Also, I already tried contacting, for the film: the Hamptons International Film Festival and they said that they don't take the pictures and I said I found pics of them at Hamptons Film Fest on the IndieFilmFestival site, so they said I have to get it from them. So I called them on the line, for specifically obtaining pictures from their site number, and their party was full. I contacted (I have the contact information) to Polly Draper's assistant - didn't respond. Contacted their site at http://www.natnalex.com/ - they didn't respond either. I have another way I could obtain the photos, although I don't know if I'll get a response - weather its the series or film its the same contact and connections. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 02:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Do they have a fan club? Maybe you can get a photo from there? In the meantime I'll see if any other editors might know. On a separate subject -- I've rewritten the 1st paragraph from the Filming section and placed in my sandbox. Have a look. If you like it just copy it and replace the existing text in the article.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they have a fan website at NatnAlex.com and they do have pictures, but as I stated above I asked them permission and they did not respond. Also, I added it to the "Filming" section, with minor tweaks. Could redo the second paragraph too? I just added a lot more information in the "Awards and reception" section. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I understand it, you can use screenshots under fair-use terms. A screenshot from The Naked Brothers Band could be used only in the article about the show, or to illustrate article(s) about characters from the show. You wouldn't be able to use screenshots to illustrate articles about the actors, for example. You'd need to upload the images here on English Wikipedia - other Wikipedias will have different rules about fair-use, and commons.wikimedia.org in particular will not allow fair-use images at all. The good news is, however, that screenshots should be easier to get than official photos with friendly licenses! Hope this helps, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Very helpful. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem about the filming section. ATC ^{. Talk} 01:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you see the answer to the image issue, posted just above by TROWR? Apparently you can use an image. Do you know how to upload? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did I was just replying and then I went to look at WP:Fair_use#images, and yes I've uploaded before, before I had knowledge about copyright infringement and plagiarism. So basically what TFOWR explained was that as long as it is on English Encyclopedia (as it is legal in English) to submit photos from screenshot images only if it "identifies" a cast/crew member somewhat present and involved with NBB in the picture? If I have any trouble about the uploading process I will ask you. Thanks TFOWR and Truthkeeper88! ATC ^{. Talk} 01:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as long as it identifies a character. This is a unique situation because Nat & Alex play themselves, but if you think of them as characters (which they are in the show which is not based in reality) then you're good to go. Good luck. Also, if you get stuck, YellowMonkey might be helpful for the techie stuff. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to add photos, but one question, can it be taken from either articles or blogs? ATC ^{. Talk} 02:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. Sorry. If it's a problem you can always take it down. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure articles or blogs would be OK, unless they were hosted by Nickleodeon - but I'm also not too sure (my one upload was a fair use image taken from a comic, so I have done some research here, but not enough to feel completely confident...!) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Ref fix

Thanks for the fix on the IBDP page.

On a different note, I'm also finding ObserverNY almost always assumes bad faith with me and really tries to be an obnoxious as possible. --Candy (talk) 05:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would certainly say there is more COI from the TAIB web site. Tendentious editing again. The information is out of context and if it should go somewhere it should be on the IB main site.

I don't know how to deal with ObserverNYs responses except keep on pointing out the comments are inappropriate. Once more, ObserverNY tries to gainsay me and refuses to respond to allegations made against me. This time it appears I was my fault for editing at the same time they were. --Candy (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Disengaging / Wiki-break

Re: this edit - no good deed goes unpunished! Enjoy your Wiki-break, and please come back soon - IBDP needs clear headed editors (I don't need to tell you that, but still...)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Taking a break to eat (yes provisions are important too!) then will return to finish the editing on the Naked Brothers Band, & will keep an eyes on IB DP. Had to stop before I went completely off-piste! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing

Hi Truthkeeper88,
Thank you for all your help with the article.
One more thing, though; is their anything more you could do to "Additional cast" section?
Also do you think it is proper format to have all of the crew listed below, with a bit biography of their career: broadway credits, music score, television appearances, etc...?
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 00:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, thanx for the comment about the photos, yeah, I think so to all though the last one is hanging over the cast section a little bit. What grade do you think the article could get? Like a "C" or "B", I would think. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 00:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I might be able to resize the photo so it doesn't hang. Based on the amount of info you have I'd expect at least a B. Haven't you submitted it for FA status? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

No I didn't, but I did for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article.

And also, thanks for all your help!

Um... a few things while I'm gone, I would like you to do for me:

1. Expand the music section, from the reference's below or find new ones and expand it with the citenews or citeweb tags.
2. Fix and clean up the Recurring stars section.
3. Anything else that you spot and fix the grammar.
4. Once you've finished, could you take down the expansion template?

Thanx again for all of your help so far!

ATC ^{. Talk} 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mind if I join you?

I've snapped, and need somewhere quiet!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does, though when I'm home, this is my nearest snow-capped hideaway! Are you, by any chance, a Kiwi too? (No hurry for an answer, if at all, I appreciate you're trying to get some R+R). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Popping in and out today. Not a kiwi, but have had a nice jade tiki bird since childhood. Your reference to "on-piste" made me think that somebody, somewhere was "on-piste" and have known some skiers who've worked at Coronet Peak during our summer/their winter. Found the article a stub and decided to work on it.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought "on-piste" was the UK version of "pissed off" ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Heh! By "going off-piste" I meant straying from the path of righteousness! Though I like your idea better ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Victoriaearle. You have new messages at TFOWR's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Victoriaearle. You have new messages at TFOWR's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TK88, I'm having a discussion with ObserverNY about the IBDP "History" section and also about an addition she made to the IB_Group_3_subjects article. This discussion is taking place on my Talk page, bottom section. Would you mind checking it out and weighing in? I appreciate it. I just posted a similar note on TFOWR's Talk page. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied at Cinchbug's talkpage w/ recommendation to move discussion to relevant article talkpage.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos

The review has started. The first suggestion of the reviewer is to get rid of the embedded list in the lead, convert it to prose and have a "location" section. I am not sure what to add to the listed towns to make it prose as in Wikipedia:Embedded list. Also I cannot see where to put a "location" section. Do you have an idea how to deal with this? Another problem is the first map's placement which destroys the layout. I'd like to write more text in the lead which would solve this problem, but can't think of anything to add at the moment. Do you have a suggestion on topics? Thanks bamse (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been brainstorming a bit and came up with the following ideas to expand the lead:

1. define "Jesuit reduction" ( = settlements...purpose of assimilating indigenous populations into European culture and religion...)
2. mention the expulsion of Jesuits and the subsequent preservation of culture/architecture/... (because it is special as far as missions are concerned)
3. say that they were incredibly successful economically and culturally (not sure how to phrase the latter)
4. expand on the phrase "their unique fusion of European and Indian cultural influences" (music, architecture,...)"

As for the embedded list, I am thinking of just writing: "They are San Javier, Concepcion,... and San Jose de Chiquitos." and moving the geo coordinates to one of the tables. It would make most sense in the founding table but might be confusing since the locations changed and the geocoordinates are for the last (most recent) location only. Please let me know what you think about these ideas or if you have any suggestions. bamse (talk) 10:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much agree. I considered whether the coordinates would work in a table, so that's an idea worth playing around with. One caveat though, putting the names of all the missions in the lead might be bulky, so again that will have to be finessed.

As for the lead -- I'd suggest a quick synopsis of what the article will offer: the Jesuits explored the region; the Jesuits built missions and churches notable for the architecture and providing music in a remote region; the Jesuits were expelled; but the today the area is a (thriving?) tourist area as a result of the restored churches and musical festivals. And of course I'll help with copyediting during this review. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and the offer to copy-edit. I put a draft for a new lead section on my sandbox. The map is almost completely integrated at least on my (small) screen. There is still a bit of space for additions, though four paragraphs seems to be a typical length for a lead section. I moved the geo-coordinates to the founding table. They don't look that bad in my opinion. The coordinates are not essential since all the settlements have an article on wikipedia with coordinates, so we might as well skip the coordinates here alltogether. If we leave them in, I would add a note (either before the table or in a footnote) saying that the coordinates are for the present settlements and not any of the earlier foundations. Please let me know how you like the new lead. bamse (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a second. Don't look at the draft yet. I just noticed that Maunus split off parts of the lead in sections. I'll adapt the draft and let you know when I am done. bamse (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, the draft is ready now. Looking forward to your comments. Actually I like the new "location" section which lines up well with the map. I am not sure the "name" section is such a good idea as I would like to refer to Chiquitania in the lead but the region has not been defined at that point. So I wrote "Chiquitos region of Spanish America" instead vaguely referring to the title. BTW, I would not call the tourism "thriving", not compared to other tourist areas in South America or even Bolivia at least. It is definitely growing in popularity though. There is even a substantial increase of websites since I started to write the article. bamse (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, have been following the events. What I'd like to do is spend some time comparing the new lead with the article, so as to make certain there aren't any repetitions. I do like the location section and the location of the map. I've only had a quick glance, but I think I may agree with your assessment of the name section. I'll need a little time for this, as I'm backed up with real life obligations, but will get back to you asap. BTW -- yes, I wondered about thriving which is why I placed a question mark after it. But, perhaps a different manner of wording is possible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem, take your time. I thought the lead was supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, so to some degree it should be a repition (not word by word though). I think that references should be removed from the lead as well according to wikipedia policy. Is that correct? bamse (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've sharpened/tightened the prose a little and posted here. Feel free to use or to reject. Ideally I'd like to go over the lead with a fresh eye tomorrow for typos and awkward sentences, etc., but generally looks very good. As for references in the lead, I've seen articles with refs in the lead, and some with refs not in the lead. Have a look at some GAs or FAs as examples. I think you've handled the naming fine in the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I like the sharpened/tightened prose, copied your version back to my sandbox, fixed some typos and added a few wikilinks. Will wait until tomorrow. Maybe the repition of "build churches" (The Jesuits built churches in a unique and distinct style that combined Indian and European elements. In addition to building churches...) does not sound very smooth yet? bamse (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Second run through: 1st sent., 2nd para tightened even more to ease readibility; 4th sentence, 2nd para removed lengthy & completely unnecessary transitional phrase. Posted here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I moved it to the article. bamse (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The new edits look good. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

IBDP

Hi - when you moved my McKinsey funding edit which I properly cited at your request, you messed up the whole paragraph in the IBDP. Just thought I'd let you know.ObserverNY (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thanks. Fixed it. The citation needed some tweaking after all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see you felt the need to add IB "superlatives" to it rather than leaving it as NPOV. ObserverNY (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Conversation moved here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Truthkeeper--just wanted to thank you for all of your help. I "stole" your cheat sheet, which will surely help me with my editing skills. If I knew how to give you are barnstar, I would! Merci mille fois La mome (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Not a prob. Cheatsheets are a necessity of life, that's why I set it up. And the barnstars are nice too!! There's a lot to find just cruising the pages and reading the policies! Btw, the IB DP subject pages are coming along nicely. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflicts...

Re: this, I got three or four edit conflicts trying to post my most recent piece ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, a new page, same conflicts. To keep the table of contents from floating in the middle I had to rearrange. Should know better!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

GA review Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos, full review

Hi! As you might have noticed User:Maunus completed the review of Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos. I started to modify the article according to his suggestions and moved the tables to separate list articles. Now I got stuck at criterion "Broad in coverage B". Maunus would like to have the names of the founding Jesuits removed as it is too detailed information. I am too much involved in the article and would rather put more info than remove some. How do you think about it? Should the founder names and/or years be removed? (In any case I'd move that info to the respective settlement articles, not to lose it completely.) bamse (talk) 08:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I glanced at the review comments, but will go back and read carefully. As for eliminating names, I do agree with the assessment that it's a lot to read for the new reader, but on the other hand taking out all the names might not be the solution either. Perhaps a balance can be struck? I'll read through again and then report back. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

note

I left you a message on TFOWR's talk page. While your editing on the IBDP page appeared to me to be a bit harsh and hyper-critical with a tad of POV thrown in, I was a newbie and you are much more knowledgeable in the ways of Wiki. I thought we were getting along well on the IB article. I kinda feel like the wife whose husband walks out on her after counseling! ;-) Stay. Please. ObserverNY (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Replied here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Watchlisting my talk page

No, don't unwatchlist my talk page!

Seriously, it sounds like you're busy in the real world, but still plan on hanging around when you can - which (a) sounds good, and (b) sounds realistic.

I hope you've picked up that Uncle G wasn't chastising you, but La Mome instead. UG clarified later, which was good.

Anyway, don't be a stranger!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, too distracting; yes & yes; saw the clarification; won't be. Cheers! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sizing images?

Not sure I understand the question? You can force the size of an image like this, but I'm guessing that's not what you mean, as that should be consistent across all browsers?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm converting two tables, one with images, into prose. Working on it here. It's taking a lot of tweaking to make the image fit the text, and don't want to overwrite (as in add a lot of junk) to the text to fit the image. Another editor asked whether the images will format consistently when different monitors have different resolutions, etc., plus of course different browsers format text at various sizes. My approach has been tweak until it fits, but of course what I view isn't necessarily what someone else might view. Does this make any sense? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Aha! Understood. My advice would be to check that it looks OK in an 800x600 monitor with normal text (if your browser supports "Bookmarklets" (most JavaScript-enabled browsers should be fine) then you can test with this: javascript:resizeTo(800,580) (create a bookmark, or favourite, and use that string for the URL).

The other side of the range - people with huge monitors/small text are going to be the biggest worry - you could potentially end up with an image on the left, followed by a line of text and an empty space. I don't think there's really anything you do to prevent that, and it would probably be an issue with images in tables, too. Make sure you have {{clear}} after each image/text block, so each mission is kept separate.

The sandbox page looks good, by the way (checking in Firefox, 1024x768, text increased in size slightly above normal).

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I work with big monitor/small text which explains all the tweaking. Will test later & thanks for suggestion to use {{clear}}. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Rushing -- saved without pre-viewing! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've got to be honest, the formatting looks fine to me. Two of the missions (San Javier and San José de Chiquitos) have text that wraps under the image with my resolution (1280 x 768, text zoomed slightly in Firefox). I think, in some ways, those two look better than the others because it doesn't look like you're trying to match the text's bottom margin to the image. One thing I moticed is that you've left-aligned San Rafael de Velasco; I thought you could maybe experiment with having two pseudo-sections - three missions left aligned, followed by three right-aligned? Another option is to dispense with individual missions' photos, and have a montage of all photos instead, and then list all the missions in prose - that would give you greater freedom to develop prose, and not be constrained by needing to have one section per mission? To be honest, though, I do like the sandbox as it is at present (maybe move San Rafael de Velasco back to being right-aligned, though, or align everything left, maybe). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hanson article

TK, I was looking at the recent addition to the Harlan Hanson article and I was thinking that the actual dollar amounts seem out of place there. While Hanson certainly played an important role in helping get IB started (and IBNA, from what I've been reading), his biggest contributions undoubtedly were with regards to AP. So, at least in the Hanson article, it seems like we're giving too much weight to information about his part in the development of IB--it's important, but I think that information, or at least some variation of it, could be properly included at the IB article itself. Does that make sense?

Let me know what you think. Regards, • CinchBug • 23:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was reading the Peterson book and wanted to move material into the Hanson article while it was fresh in my mind. In my view, a $300,000 grant to launch an educational program is notable, and 300K in 1966 was a considerable amount. Also, have been giving a lot of thought to structuring the history in the IB series which is difficult because of the multiple pages, the DP history, and the IB history. At this point my inclination is not to highlight all the players but to briefly mention them and the grant money (without which IB would not exist) and as there is a Harlan Hanson page we can wikilink to that. That said, I want to spend some time looking at featured articles about organizations such the one HelloAnnyong linked on the IB talkpage and see how the history of the organization is presented in other articles. So, if you don't mind, I'd like to "park" the IB & Ford information in the Hanson article for the time being, which presumably will be subsumed by his other accomplishments as the article grows. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Please don't leave the Hanson article, really. I understand how unpleasant it is right now (and at the IB articles), but I have hope that we can limit/eliminate the unpleasantness. There is a chance that everyone will cooperate and collaborate to make a truly great article here. We really do need you and your skills there. I do hope that you'll reconsider. Warm regards, • CinchBug • 02:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You have excellent intentions, but if you look through the histories of the IB pages it's obvious that every I've edit made, including changing a text box hanging in the middle of the article and adding a construction tag has caused controversy. On the other hand, spending entire weekends reformatting other editors unformatted refs hasn't caused the slightest stir, nor garnered a single thank you from the editors whose refs I reformatted. Archiving 7 (!) pages of talk seems to be inconsequential. If you look at my edits you'll see that I've made some good headway on articles listed on the copy edit list. I'd prefer to stay with those tasks for now. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel differently. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Steven Erikson

Hi, thanks for the introduction. I don't own the Steven Erikson page, I just check new edits - mainly for typos etc. I think your edits to the article were pretty good, and these articles have a lot of potential so it is good to have another editor interested in them. I look forward to working with you, Alan16 (talk) 12:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC).

Commedia dell'arte

• It's a pretty good article: It would be difficult to recommend merging the content from the different character's respective pages with the subject article: Some of the pages (like the Harlequin page, for example) are very large and content-heavy: This could be an unwieldy and controversial task. At the very least: The character section would do better as a list (perhaps with piping to related articles on each). Good luck on the references, and if you could use a hand with revisions to the page, just leave a message on my talk page, and I'll put it on my to-do list. bwmcmaste (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Boldened

Yeah, sorry for confusion caused. Hekerui (talk) 23:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I do appreciate the extra eyes & speedy cleanup. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not your fault!

Echoing what CB said - really not your fault. Not a problem, either - it's good we're having this discussion (Tvor65 and me) - I don't think anything bad can come of it (I think Tvor65 is big enough and hard enough to "take it on the chin").

Anyway, all moot now as I'm logging off for the night! If I log in tomorrow and find Tvor65 has retired I'll be apologising to all concerned and most likely retiring too ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and realistically it's my fault for talking about Tvor65 behind their back. I tend to assume everyone has my talk page watchlisted, so I'm being open, but I can't very well lecture Tvor65 about how things are inferred and then make bogus assumptions myself. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My fault for starting the conversation on your page. Really have to stop doing that and leave you alone, assuming that if you want to join the conversation/drama at the relevant talkpage you will. It's just that sometimes/often that drama seems to overwhelm everything else, so if I log on to work on other articles I get sucked in there. That's something I need to work on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm big enough to let you know when I need to be left alone ;-) I know what you mean about the drama sucking us in, though. I hope it's becoming increasingly unnecessary - the usual tactics of "instead of being naive you should pity poor me, it's all the other editor's fault" don't seem to be working and are now leading to blocks. I've tried to hint this to both editors before, but hopefully actual blocks will succeed where abstract advice hasn't, and the drama will diminish. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've just noted the block, although don't quite see how it came about. From the 3 reverts? I'm not entirely hopeful the situation will change. Finishing the articles isn't a bad idea, just to be done, but reaching the goal is painfully difficult. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, I think. Admins can block editors for edit warring even if the blocked editor hasn't crossed the 3RR line. Since I last posted a reviewing admin has rejected the "instead of being naive..." unblock request; I'm hopeful that that'll send a message further than the intended recipient... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you interested in using the slowdown to add either Cluebot or Miszabot to the talkpages to aid archiving. Honestly I don't know how to add a bot to the talkpage template, but am willing to learn. Miszabot III appears to be somewhat more stable than Cluebot II. For now, also, I need to take the opportunity to work on other articles. 17:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes/no/sort of! If I've got my numbers right, the article will still be protected once ONY's block ends. I think it would be good to get input from ONY, as well as everyone else, before doing this. So my answer is yes, but in a day or two. (Incidentally, I'll check protection and block logs and make sure I'm not imagining figures here. I'll report back if my numbers are off). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(Looks like ONY's block ends 07:35 (UTC) on the 3rd; article protection ends 21:50 (UTC) on the 3rd. TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC))

International Baccalaureate is blocked for 72 hours since late last night. ONY blocked for 48 starting early this morning. International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme is not blocked at all. But, of course, you're correct. Best to do nothing for a few days. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Moving too fast - I concur with your assessment and respectfully request that you help focus the unbridled surge for deletion of the entire 'Reception' section in the IBDP which you previously stated "needed work on". You also stated that the History section was incomplete. I think the 'Recognition" table you reformatted looks great. If you could help put the brakes on LaMome, it would be greatly appreciated. ObserverNY (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Archiving IB talk pages

(Hijacking TK's talk page - sorry TK!) Welcome back, ONY! Hadn't realised it was that time already. I guess that means it's time to start advertising archiving. TK, do you want to do the honours? You seem more of an archiving guru than me (frankly, anyone is probably more of an archiving guru than me...) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about hijacking my page. As for moving too fast, I don't really consider myself the arbiter for these articles -- but in my view it's impossible to keep with the swift changes that occur, and in fact still haven't had time to read all the threads on the talk page, which brings us to archiving. Once we know the best method, I'm happy to advertise on the relevant talk page. A couple of problems though: at some point a template was set up, and I don't know how to add an archiving bot to a template, so will have look around to see how that's done; also, in order to preserve history, the best method seems to be the manual cut/paste (which truly is a pain with talk pages such as these) so I'd want to know which bot is best to preserve history. I had CluebotII on my page for a few days and the bot did not archive to my archive, in fact I have no idea where it went, so I had to go to the page history and back to a previous version, which sounds like a nightmare on the IB pages. TFOWR, have you checked your archives to see whether CluebotII is in fact archiving to the archives? If not, then let's assume Cluebot isn't terribly stable and consider using Miszabot instead. Once we've determinded which bot to use, then it's only a matter of adding the markup to the template? Am fairly busy today, but might get a few moments to dig around in bot land. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I know exactly nothing about archiving and I didn't even know that there were any archiving bots aside from Cluebot. But I'm all for archiving the IB and IBDP Talk pages automatically, and will leave that in TK's and TFOWR's capable hands, since I'm quite sure that I'd muck it up! Regards, • CinchBug • 18:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems like we're all incompetent ;-) I've got ClueBot (I think... I'll need to check) deleting old posts and ... well, that's the problem. Initially they went somewhere, then I tried to get them to go elsewhere, now they go nowhere...

In some ways, though, it doesn't really matter (yet) - I reckon if we can agree on archiving, then we could get someone more experienced (HA? Uncle G?) to either implement it or steer us in the right direction.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Caught me as I was reading this. I had the problem with Cluebot archiving to nowhere & decided I didn't want it on my talkpage. Miszabot looks fairly straightforward, but I'm not sure about adding this mark-up to a page that already has seven archives. Does the counter get preset to 7, or does it start again at 1? Agreed that Uncle G or HelloAnnyong might be helpful resources. Also, the markup allows to set attributes for how often to archive, and even how many threads to leave on the harvested page. Miszabot doesn't move the page history which is good. (Sorry, I may have to log off for some time, but feel free to continue without me to keep the conversation in one place!)Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I used "Clue Bot III", for what it's worth. I think my problem with it may have been similar to the problem we have - kind of the "existing archive" problem you stated above (I wanted a specific format, so an archive box I quite liked would work with it... what can I say? I base my archiving decisions on fashion!) It's for this reason (existing archives) that I think expert help would be good - this is possibly really easy, but it'll be a pain if we mess it up. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we can ask the person/people who originally made the bot. They'd probably know how this should be done. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I used Cluebot III as well, but w/out an archive format, and my messages still went nowhere (or perhaps somewhere I couldn't find) . As we now have a "filing cabinet" format on those talk pages, with all the existing archives I'm afraid we could create more trouble than it's worth until we have a clear answer. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, back-to-back posts. I think the answer is here on Misza13's talkpage. The counter needs to be set to the most recent archive, or one more to start a new archive. My talkpage is getting long; I could start it going here as a test, and if it works, we can try it over at IB DP? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Third time right? Ignore the previous post! I see that I have two sets of archives at the top of this talk page: one is a subpage I set up manually, the second lives in the template and doesn't have archives at all. So now I'm really confused and won't let a bot loose without knowing where the messages are going. Agree we need help. Suggest asking Misza13. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi TFOWR - Thanks for the welcome back. I don't have a horse in the "archiving" race one way or the other - the whole thing seems like a massive diversionary tactic to me. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hey TK, Thank you for helping out with the archiving and your recent improvements to the IBDP article! Do you have any ideas as to what I can do to help? I am at a loss for now--maybe it's the sun/heat?!

La mome (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Chiquitos missions

Hello, Victoriaearle. You have new messages at Bamse's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Congratulations!

con gratulations - I have phttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Truthkeeper88&action=edit&section=20assed Jesuit Mission of the Chiquitos as a Good Article! You did great work there and I will not be surprised to see the article as a future Featured Article.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are a very good copyeditor. Recently I was GA reviewing the article Central Morocco Tamazight for User:Mo-Al and I had to convince him to withdraw it because the prose wasn't good enough (he is, like Bamse and yours truly not a native English speaker). It is an otherwise excellent article with lots of information about a virtually unknown language (to most people) and I think that if you have the time and interest it would benefit a lot from your copyediting hand - and I would love to be able to pass it as a GA later on. ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Copy editing

Hi Truth,

as far as copy-editing goes, we aren't tasked with improving or expanding articles. We simply correct the language used in the article. If you are also contributing to the articles you copy-edit, then that is great. :D Besides, variety is the spice of life, right? Anyone can edit articles, so the fact that you joined the copy-editors group does not stop you from totally rewriting an article from the ground up if the mood takes you. :D

--James Chenery (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Erikson

Hi - I saw you were thinking about getting rid of the text boxes. I think they look good in the article - I'd keep them. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

I'm thinking they might be disproportionately large, but I've cut the text in one of them, without losing the gist of the quotation which really does describe how complicated the books are. Also, as the newest book will be out soon, that page might get some traffic, so I thought I'd tidy a little. Still need the ISBNs for the other books, and then back to the sources to fill in any missing information. I saw there had been a request for GA status; what happened to that? Is there a review page? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they're fine the way they're just now. As for the GA, nobody seems to have taken it up - I'll look at getting it re-listed. I've just added a ref, and I'll look for some more just to cover all bases. I'll also have a look for the ISBNs. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC).

Hi. I filled in all the missing ISBNs. Added the new novella and created the article. Added a bunch of refs. Looking pretty good to me. I intend to create some more articles for the Steve Lundin stuff later today. And I've tried to get someone I know is good at article reviewing to look at the Erikson article. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC).

Hi Alan16. You've done a lot of work and the article generally looks better. The one thing that concerns me is the use of the Youtube interview as a source. My understanding is that per WP:RS and WP:YOUTUBE sourcing with YouTube should be avoided. Can you check with somebody over at the Novel Taskforce or the Fantasy Taskforce to get another opinion? If we can't use it, I'd imagine there's plenty of new material out to market the new book, and I'll have to dig around to see what I can find. Unfortunately I won't get much wiki time in the the next week, but I'll be checking in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. By accident I've already checked with a member of the WikiProject. The ed17, a well respected member of the project who you might have met, thought they were ok. Copyright isn't an issue as it is uploaded by the copyright holder and therefore becomes free use by putting it on YouTube. I also found the video initially from a mention in an Erikson post on malazanempire.com so he knows of it. I think the YouTube ref should be fine then. I'll do some more work to the article and I'll post a note here so you can have a look. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

This is what I've read on the User:the ed17's talkpage: "A preliminary look gives me these problems: only three sentences in the biography, bare URLs in the references, what makes refs 3, 8, 16, 18, 20, 24, 27, and 28 reliable?" The sources he mentions are the ones that are YouTube. Moreover, I don't believe it's ready for GA review yet; I was wondering whether a review existed to know what else needs to be done. But certainly, I wouldn't consider submitting an article that still has naked urls, that still needs to be fleshed out and that needs all refs to pass as per WP:RS. As for the YouTube, I'll open a thread on the talkpage and request a 3rd opinion, just to be certain. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Ed doesn't mention the YouTube sources in the list of questionable sources - I think you've misread what he said. Feel free to request a 3O, but it isn't necessary - the links are perfectly reliable. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

You're absolutely right. He mentions an entirely different set of sources, and as it happens I agree with him. Taking this to the talkpage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Peer review: Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos

Hi Truthkeeper88! Nev1 made a comprehensive peer review of the Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos. Most of his comments concern content. Prose is mainly fine. If you don't mind, I would come back to you if I struggle with the few prose issues. For the time being I will work on content. bamse (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. In fact most of the sentences flagged are ones I struggled with & generally my mistakes, so I'm happy to have another go at it to fix those problems. In particular, the sentence about "enforcing" I think is mine from the rewritten "History" paragraph so I can go back and fix that error! Generally good comments and not too much to be done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding replies on the review page. I have a problem with the sentence "The Jesuits were blamed for fomenting rebellion among the missions..." mentioned in the review. Could it be understood as: "The Jesuits encouraged conflicts and clashes between different missions"? If yes, it should be made clear (how?) that the rebellion was directed against the Europeans (Portuguese) not against Indians. bamse (talk) 22:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I remember working on that section, which was in the source. I'd like to reread the source (Gott) and as we don't have a page number, it might take a little time to find it. But, I'm thinking, if there is no good to way reword, then simply add in the direct quotation from the source. Will let you know once I find it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Rewritten by adding a bit of direct quotation and paraphrasing the rest. BTW -- it was on page 203. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I added a note on the review page. bamse (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiki Manual

Please see my comment at IBDP. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Comment

Hi Truthkeeper88,
Thanx for all your hard work on The Naked Brothers Band (TV series) article, I appreciate it.
Their is a problem though; in this interview [7]; both the interviewer and the description is word-to-word, which is copyright infringement of the article on Wiki.
What should we do about this?
ATC ^{. Talk} 03:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi ATC -- I had to stop for a few days because of health problems. Please link the section in the article with the interview. If I can attribute it correctly it won't be copyvio. Once I'm back I'll have a look and fix. Thanks Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to here that Truthkeeper88, hope everything is well and gets better. Feel better soon. I'll reference the interview in the article with the context. All the best, ATC ^{. Talk} 22:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll put it on the talk page; And again hope you feel better, ATC ^{. Talk} 22:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing serious. I'll be back in a day or two and finish the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi ATC! Now that I have my wits back, I see what you mean. However, according to WP:COPYRIGHT I think there's not much to be done. We could reword the article if you'd like. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Their is another Wiki policy; for more info, I've been speaking to User:C.Fred on the article's talk page. I would prefer for the three of us to continue their. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 01:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the clean up on the IB pages, especially Group 2! There are some things that I just have no idea how to do! La mome (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Was that the page with the edit buttons floating in the text? Didn't know how to re-section but it had to be done. I hope you don't mind the way I've done it by bolding the words that aren't technically section headers. It's the only way to get rid of the edit buttons.

BTW -- about the history. I'm too busy with other projects, but I'll get back to it when things slow down a bit. Also, I don't mind doing clean-up chores on IB, but would rather stay away from editing that's considered contentious. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos and I liked the longer lead in that context (well, I might want to trim it just a little bit :-). Introducing a/an historical element to the IBDP lead would probably be a good idea in the long term, but—though things seem to be settling down a bit there now—let's not focus on the lead for the time being. When the body of an article is in good shape, the lead should write itself anyway. Seems to me that the main IBDP article is still missing reliable third party commentary (especially what is distinctive about it and how it is received), and it won't deserve GA until we have that nailed down. There are still plenty of uncontroversial IB areas to improve... aren't there? - Pointillist (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, but I think I'm basically done there for a while. The sections that need work are controversial and I'd prefer to avoid as much controversy as possible. After shoving around text today, I wondered whether the history section should be mentioned (in one or two sentences) in the lead. At any rate, I think we essentially agree. Sorry I brought it up. Btw -- I wasn't thinking in terms of GA status; I've had to rewrite leads for any assessments recently. The IB series is not stable enough to achieve GA status, imo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with all that. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I made the proposed changes on the IBDP and added the bit about the 20th Century fund and Mayer, but I think I messed up the ref for Fox---there is an error message in big red letters at the bottom (and for the schools list---did I do that too???) So sorry! I'll post a message on the talk page as well if you're too busy to fix my mess. Again, I apologise profusely... La mome (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Losing the Fox ref is my fault; but this is why I don't like to mess with the text too much. Yesterday it was fine. Today I changed it and made a mistake. Then more mistakes were made with subsequent changes. The result has to be fixed, and what should have been simple edits become a day long chore. Anyway, time to step away. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the IBDP is unrated, I don't think we need to think about jumping all the way to GA (but, hey, that's me, just a newbie, what do I know???!!) If we are rated start or c class, that should be ok for now, no? TK, don't beat yourself up. It's not your fault! Take a break, but come back soon...please...we need you! La mome (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean stepping away from the article, meant stepping away from the computer. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ref for Mayer piece is xii (preface) from the hardcopy of the Peterson book--second edition. I think that may be part of the problem as the other references are from google books, yes? No sure, just guessing. Thanks again for your help! La mome (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter where you read them, but the edition is important and the page #s may be off. I'm reading 2nd edition as well, but online. I think it might not be a bad idea to start adding page numbers, and since you have the hard copy you can check whether the page numbers I add from the online version is correct. Need to think about how to do this -- will let you know. Thanks for now, for the preface page #. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can definitely help you with the page numbers. Just let me know what you need. For Peterson's book, do all the references need to come from the second edition? Just wondering.

La mome (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Truthkeeper. Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. I will do my very best not to betray the confidence you have shown me. If you ever have any questions or suggestions about my conduct as an administrator or as an editor please don't hesitate to contact me. Once again, thanks. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I was happy to support you, particularly after your comment that you don't intend to stop editing. In my view the content you add here is very good and I would have been disappointed to see you go as a content writer. I've had a look at Ottawa language which I think I can brush up a bit and in the process learn how to tackle the grammar section in the Tamazight article. I need a little break from Tamazight as I seem to be spinning my wheels there without achieving much. So, if you don't mind, I'll start having a go at your articles next. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be very happy if you would copyedit Otomi language whcih I want to make an FA shortly.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice article!! My internet connection has been going in & out today, so won't get any editing done until that's taken care of, but once I'm back online I'd be happy to take a run through of Otomi language. Is there a review page? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

yes, the peer review page is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Otomi language/archive1 - even if you don't have time to make a full review any copyediting for prose etc. that you can do will be greatly appreciated.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I should be able to get to it in the next few days. At the moment I'm bogged in a very unpleasant situation at Talk:IB Diploma Programme, so I'll be happy to bail out of there. Thanks for the link to the review. The prose doesn't look to bad, but will do a brush up. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see the firestorm of comments over at Otomi language and understand your frustration. If it were me, I wouldn't substantially change the content, as, in my view, the content is integral to the article as a whole. As for the prose, the changes really were very mild and easy to make. I think you've contributed a nice article here on wikipedia and you should have some sense of accomplishment for doing so. It's interesting to me that so many people quickly became involved, and some had such negative comments. I'd be upset as well if it were my article. Anyway, just wanted to let you know, and I think it reads better now than before. If you don't mind I might tweak the prose on some of your other articles, simply, because I for one, enjoy reading your topics. Take care. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Truthkeeper88, thank you for all of your hard work on the article. I really appreciate it. And I will give you a shout out if I need any help. The best... :) ATC ^{. Talk} 15:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IBDP talk page

Please drop by when you have a moment. Thanks La mome (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

FYIDon't know how to handle this. Any advice? La mome (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

See my reply on the talkpage. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to get a new set of editors to take over the article and all the rest of us disappear. Btw -- am busy in real life, so need to try to stay away from Wikipedia to get real work done, but will check in when I can. Also, will be using any Wikipedia time I get for copyediting elsewhere. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote of confidence. I came back to editing. I thought it was going somewhere and in the end it isn't. It's a lot of tendentious editing and simply annoying. I feel (probably like you do) that it's a very unhealthy environment.

Constant changes to the talk pages so that it feels like a chat room (this isn't normal). Drama queen behaviour (this isn't normal). Paranoia -accusations of editors/organisations being a gang or plotting against an editor (this isn't normal) and finally riding close to the wind by being consistently sarcastic and insensitive. TBH I gave it a go but the lack of good faith but tit for tat whenever I have suggested inappropriate behaviour, cherry-picking of information, inconsiderateness, incivility and selective quoting (including a lack of good faith when I wrote something ambiguously) just wastes my time.

I'll stay on other pages and just watch this one. I'm sadly confident that someone has been given enough rope ...

If we don't meet here again I hope we meet again on a more normal page ... thanks again --Candy (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yo, paid rock star - bite me. You hopped on your feminist broom calling me sexist because I had the AUDACITY to refer to someone who goes by the handle Candy as a HER! You are a disingenuous, arrogant, obnoxious control freak who thinks HER shit doesn't stink and who can lecture me on etiquette. You never apologized for your assault on me and I have ZERO respect for you. ObserverNY (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

When I get really annoyed I unwatch the pages so I don't have to follow the conversation. While you were gone we set up archiving of the talk pages so it all gets put away w/out having to archive manually. As this has gone to ANI to wikiquette & to a third opinion all w/ no resolution there's just not a lot to be done but ignore. I think you're a good editor, and ultimately the article has to be finished. Completely understandable if you don't want to be involved, particularly given today's events, which I mostly missed, but would like to reserve the right to ask for opinions if you don't mind. Sometimes these things run a natural course as well -- I realise I'm sounding much more sanguine than I feel, but don't see much of an alternative. Having spent so much (painful) time and effort would like to see some completion of the article. Btw -- what's your opinion of the table of countries. I believe you missed that discussion! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi TK. yes I keep on getting sucked in. It's good advice to unwatch. Thnaks.

Now it appears that ObserverNY is leaving the pages and has given up with editing???

It's annoying as I';ve been on and off these pages for a few years now.. However, when I was away I had some time to read some discussions but only half-heartedly.

I haven't really been following the country thing. One has to ask what benefit a table of countries would be? I don't feel it has a place either as a table, list or map. Wouldn't it just be a duplication of wahat's on the IB website (or a troll of schools running the IBDP from the web).

If it's about recognition that becomes very difficult to source and find information for. It also leads to a lot of speculation, the need for "official" government policy (which often doesn't exist) or simply using the few secondary sources about tertiary education placement to be typical of tertiary education as a whole in that country. I hope that makes sense. I guess we would end up cherry-picking as there would be so few cherries around? Regards --Candy (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Mongolian language

Hi Truthkeeper88! I just noticed you as a copyeditor at Otomi language. While I hope that Mongolian language is in a somewhat better shape in this respect, it failed to gain FA status notably due to concerns related to copyediting. As a non-native, I cannot contribute more in this respect than I have done, so if you enjoy copyediting language articles I would be glad to meet you at Mongolian language! G Purevdorj (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I have a number of articles on the go at the moment, but will have a look at it when I get the chance and get back to you. Thanks for asking! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting Otomi languages

- (1) I gathered from the GOCE page that the Guild is just Wikipedians who are particularly committed to doing copyediting. I saw no explanation of why only members of the Guild should do copy editing when the tag is posted. Indeed, there was no explanation of what the point of the tag is (e.g., to get people to postpone content editing).

- (2) When you made the strongly ungrammatical change of "Variants of Otomi are" to "Variants of Otomi is", was that just a hasty oversight, or was it intentional? Makes you seem like not a native speaker, and one of the major motivations for rallying extra copy editing attention to this particular article is that the person responsible for enlarging it is a Dane.

- - (3) I'm not just an astute copy editor, I'm a specialist in linguistics. Two of the changes I just made, citing factual correction, were to a sentence that *I* added in the last day and a half or so. Dale Chock (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't let Dale Chock get on your nerves he acts like that with everybody. I hope that one day he will learn that wikipedia is a colaborative effort and that is pays of to treat your colleagues with respect and dignity. And that you can't alway have it your way. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll carry on and finish what I've started. Thanks for the advice. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper. Re 'Postclassic'- no worries, it's hard to spot and even some of the sources can be inconsistent. And good pick-up on 'pre-Columbian', agree it is a little counter-intuitive but I guess that's just become the convention. Thanks for your great efforts and contribs in copyediting on this, really appreciate your dedication and having a sharp copyeditor like yourself is indispensable. Unfortunate that another c/e's unecessarily abrasive approach has muddied the waters somewhat, even to the point of distracting from the good work they are otherwise capable of contributing. But that's wikipedia for you, I guess...cheers --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper, apologies for the slight delay in responding, my internet access and wiki-editing time have been quite sporadic and unpredictable of late. To answer your question, if you still have the stomach for it then I for one would appreciate any continuation of your valuable c/e activities at Otomi language. Even tho' Maunus is stepping back from further commenting, the FA is not dead in the water yet, and even if it doesn't get past the FA coordinators this time (dunno how they'll interpret the current situation) that'd be less tidy up needed for a future nomination. I'll do what I can to respond to further cmts, time and access permitting. As for what to do about those other recent changes, as far as I'm concerned the consensus referencing style implemented in this one ought to follow WP:CITESHORT, and intext refs & mentions be kept to bare minimum. If someone cares to argue the toss, will deal with the fallout on talkpg. But yes, if you can still see anything needing a beneficial tweak, and have the energy/time to do so, then your efforts wld be welcomed and not wasted. CHeers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 03:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. I'll carry on then. Don't have as much time this week as last, but will spend my wikipedia time on that article. Also thanks for the response re: the referencing. In my view the intext refs detract from the text, so I'll think about how to respond to those edits and then bring it to the talkpage if need be. Thanks again.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Narragansett Council

Is there any reason to keep the copyedit template on the Narragansett Council article? It seems to me that the article may lack some references, but the writing is just fine now. I removed a comma from the lede. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Don't worry, if it ever stops I can create a sock puppet. This will avoid us becoming relaxed and sloppy ;-) oops unsigned previously - twas me below -->>

I really, really feel I know why you deleted the history section. Could I ask you to consider reverting it please? --Candy (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Already done. See my comment on the talkpage w/ diffs. The editor is very clearly vandalising the section and attempting to draw conflict. The edit histories are clear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I was worried my unsigned comment above was misread by you as ONY and sparked you off :( I'll now pop back to the page then and check if my eidts are also being undone in the war :{ --Candy (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added the diff in the talkpage over there. It's the one addressed to you. What sparked me off is that I'm tired of fixing a section over and over because of sloppy work. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've made an unreserved apology to ONY and requested some reflection of their behalf on ONY's talk page. I hope at least by my apology to reduce any flames. --Candy (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to apologize. Do you think I should demand and apology for the vandalism of my talkpage, or for the accusation that I'm an exhausting editor. I really really cannot do this anymore. The problem is that I don't have a point to prove so I don't care what happens to the article, but I wish that some sort of accuracy were to be kept. In my view the article should be locked. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"to do box"

Thank you for the present! Cheers! La mome (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's law

Responding here so as not to monopolize Ewen's talk page. I especially appreciated this part: "By 2007, The Economist had declared that "a good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument." And in October 2007, the "Last Page" columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, "you have only to say 'Godwin's Law' and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles."" Thanks for helping me gain perspective. La mome (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I had missed that specific comment in the flurry of comments, but couldn't resist when I saw your post on Ewen's page. To change the subject completely: I'm salvaging a series of articles from the to be copyedit lists and specifically working on Commedia dell'arte about which I know very little but am learning quickly. A few of the sources are either in French of Italian. Was wondering whether I can yell if I need help? Specifically the Sand source is beyond my rudimentary French, but I haven't really had to use it yet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure--it will be refreshing to edit somewhere else. I'd be happy to help. Where/How could I find articles like that to work on?

La mome (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

TK - I left you a message here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ewen#Controversy_at_IB_Diploma_Programme ObserverNY (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Steven Erikson

Yes, I think they're out of print. When I tried to buy my copies I searched everywhere and ended up having to buy second hand. I had a quick look at the stuff you added (and linked This River Awakens + changed a word for fluency) and I think it's a really good addition: it's clear/concise/true and it adds some bulk to that section, which it was lacking before. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

IB DIploma Pages need rescuing

Hi Truthkeeper,

Could you please visit my talk page, read and comment on my recent section about the IB Diploma Programme.

Many thanks, --Candy (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Modesty?

Aw, c'mon; won't you re-accept the award? The only one I've ever given and it gets deleted... 8-)

You've done nothing to dishonour it!

Ewen (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused: I'm happy to have your award and didn't know I'd deleted it. It's still there on my user page isn't it? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yours is there, Ewen. It was MY minor barnstar Truthkeeper deleted. ObserverNY (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's correct: I deleted a barnstar, but not the one from Ewen. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hemingway

Responded to your query regarding images on my talk page. Lithoderm 14:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi User:Truthkeeper88,

I wanted to know if you could help me copyedit the article, The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie.

It almost fits the criteria for FAC status, but it needs some mild copyedits first.

Thanx!

ATC ^{. Talk} 01:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to work on that article. Am ready to take a break from my current article. I'll read The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie tonight and hopefully can start working on it tomorrow. If you haven't been through FAC yet, then I'll help there too, because often the comments are about the prose. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually I did nominate it for FAC, but it failed do to that issue. Also a Wiki user left me a few comments on the lead for me to fix, but one I don't know how to explain it. Its in these symbols: <-- -->. See if you could find them when you can to answer. Thanx and your time and effort is very much appreciated. ATC ^{. Talk} 01:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I saw that. I can fix it. Do you have a link to the FAC so I can read the comments? That's always helpful. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Here [8], but I also meant their was comments in the Lead section of the article as well as FAC nomination page. Also, it is not known what time of day the siblings jumped out of the bathtub, so night should be left out, because it is also not sourced and will not meet FAC status. :) ATC ^{. Talk} 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll change the "night", but I might check the source first because usually kids have baths at night so let's see whether it says that specifically, otherwise, you're right, it has to go. I saw the comments that are imbedded in the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you also check this link out about FAC? ATC ^{. Talk} 02:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That'll help too, thanks. You've been busy! I'm logging off now, but will start working on this as soon as I can. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, enjoy the night. ATC ^{. Talk} 02:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

MOS that needs revising

Hi Truthkeeper88,
In the "Filming" section for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie I wrote a sentence that dosn't look right, but I don't know how to revise it.
This is the sentence:

Draper explains that in order to film the movie, "We would sneak into locations and run."

Do you think the sentence is fine or does it need revising?
Also in the "Filming" section do you think that this sentence:

The majority of the cast were friends and relatives of the Draper-Wolff family.

Should be revised to:

The majority of the cast were friends and relatives of the Draper-Wolff family (and/or) clan.

What do you think?
Otherwise than that did you detect any more copyediting that needs to be done for FAC, because I don't think their is much more than that and you did a great job.
When you finish helping me, I will be giving you a barnstar for your time, effort, and all of your hard work.
Thanx and happy editing!
ATC ^{. Talk} 21:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence does need to be rewritten. Does it mean they snuck into locations and started filming? The second sentence, about the Wolff/Draper family is fine, I wouldn't change it. I've been working on this as I have time, and there are a couple other things I saw that are confusing. I'll get back to you with a list, but overall it looks good. I think I could maybe do one more pass for prose, but if you want to wait, I'll do it later. Also, when you submit to FAC, I'll help with any recommended fixes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that and also regarding principle photography about sneaking into locations that would make sense; Draper quoted it in the New York Times. Okay later tonight or withing the week(s) or month(s)? So I could clairify what you mean and yes I will wait, their is never a need for rushing. Thanx for all your help! ATC ^{. Talk} 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just had to take care of something, but am back now. Here are my recommendations:

1. The second & third sentences in the lead are still a bit awkward. If you don't mind, I'd like to work on recasting them slightly. Done.
2. In the "Music" section the first sentence says Nat wrote all the songs, but then it says Draper wrote "Boys Rule, Girls Drool." Does that need to be fixed? Done
3. Second paragraph of "Releases and debuts" has information about the TV series. Do you want to cut that down a bit, since this article is about the movie before the TV series, or leave as is? Done

That's it. Otherwise it looks good. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure for #1 do what ever you need to do. For #2, I guess you are right, though the majority was written by Nat so it probally should be revised. For #3 I put that because I wanted to explain how it was Albie Hecht who made the film known and developed the series—that's why I wanted to mention him a little bit in the article, since his production company distributed the film once Nickelodeon co-opted it. I think that should stay, what do you think? Should the article just stay consistant about the film? ATC ^{. Talk} 00:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanations. Those are quick fixes. I'll do them now while I'm online and you can check what I've done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help sometime tommorow I will give you a barnstar and nominate the film for FAC again. Thanx again and enjoy the rest of the night! :) ATC ^{. Talk} 01:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your edits of my edits were good. I see you improving your writing; you're very dedicated to this project; and you're really nice to work with! Let me know if you need help with the FAC -- I'll find the link and follow the discussion. You enjoy your night too!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to User:Truthkeeper88 for this editor's trumendous help for prose and WP:MOS on The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article, as it will be going through a FAC nomination this week. In addition to this user's mild changes to the The Naked Brothers Band TV series article. ATC . Talk 03:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ATC!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really been about much recently, but just noticed the above - congratulations! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

FAC request

User:Eubulides left a comment on FAC nominatation for the film at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/archive3. I don't know what to rewrite in the caption for the image, since examples I see only describe film posters. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 15:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to rewrite, it has to be reformatted & I don't know how to add alt text but I'll ask someone who does. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay that should help by that user's advice. Also just to let you know I don't even think it needs a long description, this example of an FAC article has a very short description and its a poster to a film. So it shouldn't be that much longer than it is. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 15:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Once the alt text is in, it can be edited. Is the image the cover of the DVD? At any rate describing the band isn't such a bad thing, and I can reword, now that it's done! (Also, just so you know, TFOWR recently added alt text to images for another FAC, so certainly has a better grasp than I do of the process.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Butting in - hi, ATC, I'm the editor Truthkeeper88 asked to add the alt text. Just to clarify - there are two image parameters, "caption" and "alt". Caption is what regular-sighted readers see when we hover our mouse over the image - something like "movie poster" is fine for that. Alt text is intended for vision-impaired readers, and should be more descriptive. The Jaws article doesn't have alt text, though it does have a caption.

Anyway, take a look at the alt text I added - and do feel free to edit it, you two know far more about the subject than me!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification TFOWR, and you're not butting in! ATC, if you want to edit the text, then I suggest the following: rather than boy wearing.... plug in the name of the band member. Since I don't know who is who, I trust you to do that, and then I can tweak if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ATC I've made tweaks to the alt text. Can't tell who is dressed in the shirt w/ the Union Jack & American flag. Is that one of the Wolff brothers? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Latest edit is good. I realise it seems slightly odd referring to the band members as "a boy", "a girl", "two boys" etc but it makes sense in the context of someone having the image described to them! I did the alt text over at Gordon Brown and described the President of the USA as "a man in a suit walking between two rows of marines" - very surreal ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is surreal. Anyway, Eubulides is happy, so that's good! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had computer problem's so I haven't been able to respond in a few days... anyway I put my cursor over the caption and the alt text doesn't show, so I clicked edit and saw what you were referring to. I tried to re-edited but realized that the grammar wouldn't of been that good. So I'll explain and maybe you could fix it:

1. Both boy's with the drum stick are two different pictures of the younger brother, Alex; also it's part of his fashion "style" in the film, its not a bandana its a do-rag.
2. The boys in the suit and sport-styled glasses is Cooper Pillot (starred as the manager). One thing I've noticed about some of the other cast members is that it was an indie film and that picture of Cooper is from the first season of the show; he was younger in the film.
3. The two girls are the same girl, Rosalina (played by Allie DiMeco and Nat's crush).

Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 05:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also as in the film A Hard Day's Night and this film they had pictures of the band members in square's during this film's "photo shoots". It's a theme but their is no reference to put, unless if it took place in the film and it has relevance of a similarity do you think it is necessary to add without a reference? ATC ^{. Talk} 05:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So as not to make it too wordy, I'll simply substitute the names of the characters (without using the actor name). Also, I know it's a do-rag, but probably best to use more generic language, so bandana, in my view, is best. I think the description of the image (squares within a square or something like that) is fine. Anyway, I'll tweak again, and then let me know what you think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for being dense (I'm not up with the fashion trends of today's hip young people...!) but "do-rag"? I gather that it's a bandana-type-of-thing, but what, precisely, is it?!

Also, what's the timescale for getting FA status - I've got two congratulatory messages lined up for you two, and my fingers are getting twitchy!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well this is ATC's work, so I'm not sure about the FAC timescale. See Do-rag -- hip hop fashion! (Yes, even I know that, and until I worked on this article didn't know about The Naked Brothers, but I think it's a nice article, and adding material for younger audiences to Wikipedia is a good thing.) Nice of you to consider congratulations before it gets approved! Thanks.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I've learned something new - always a good thing! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

ATC -- who's the boy holding the microphone? Is that Nat? If so, I'll add that in. Also, that TFOWR has learned something by helping is very good thing, and in my view the spirit of Wikipedia! Don't worry about your edits being ungrammatical, your content is good, and grammar is fixed easily. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanx! Also, yes the boy with the microphone is Nat. Also Cooper didn't just star as the manager, he also played himself. ATC ^{. Talk} 19:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you see the alt text apart from actually clicking "edit the page"? ATC ^{. Talk} 19:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean you don't have a Screen reader?! (Actually, given the Jaws movie poster mentioned above, there's a really bad joke I could be making...)

Seriously, though, I use Firefox and can right-click on the image and select "Properties" - the alt text appears in the properties (badly, I might add - it's all on one line). I'd imagine Safari/IE/Opera/etc have similar.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Not visible on Safari, (and we don't have right clicks, but control/click = right click & still no alt text). I'll check Firefox.

ATC, I'll change the text to Nat & Cooper. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I just fixed Nat and Cooper, but you could check to make sure everything's written fine, also I use Safari on a MacBook so that might be the problem; I'll try by using Firefox. ATC ^{. Talk} 19:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll check Safari at work tomorrow (oops about the right-click, by the way, I'd forgotten I'd configured my mighty mouse to do right-clicks to ease the Monday-morning Linux-OS X transition...) Firefox on Macs, I'm fairly sure has properties where I described - Firefox is fairly consistent across platforms. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Using OS X & Firefox -- control and click simultaneously, which displays dialogue box, scroll to properties, and the first few words of the alt text are viewable. I tried adding line breaks. I tightened a little, but not much help. The entire text is visible if the box is pulled open as wide as it will go. But, there must be a command to have a line break in the text, somehow. So, technically done, but still not perfect, and needs a little troubleshooting. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment on alt text as per WP:Alt -- as TFOWR has written above it is very weird. I want to rethink the wording as it is now, and perhaps go back to the wording saying "a boy" and "a girl" and so on, as that is correct -- and thanks to TFOWR for being patient with us! (As I said, I do need to learn how to do this.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Help request

Hi Truthkeeper88! Can you help again? It's a completely different topic this time (Japanese sculpture) but much less text than for the Jesuit missions. I am trying to get List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures) up to featured list quality. For this, the list should have "professional standards of writing" and the lead should be engaging and introduce the subject, scope and inclusion criteria. On request I expanded the lead but am not sure if it is a good lead. I tried a historical introduction to Japanese sculpture but feel that the lead is not really connected to the list/table. Do you have the same feeling and/or suggestions/comments on how to improve the lead? Would be great to get some feedback on the list. bamse (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bamse! Good to hear from you! Let me clear the decks a bit, and I'll have a look. First need to look at other FLs and then see what you have. Might take a few days, but I'll get back to you. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Take your time, I am still searching for pictures to add to the list. Just to make sure, the request is only about the lead (and maybe "statistics" and "usage" sections), not about the looong list that follows it. bamse (talk) 09:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bamse. Finally getting to this project! I've read the lead which seems fine to me. I'll tweak the prose, but don't think it needs much. As for the question of whether the lead connects to the table: I don't know yet. I will have to plow through the looong list to see if there are obvious discrepancies. I'll copyedit the lead first and then get back you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The statues mentioned in the lead by name should appear in the loong list. I am not sure that the trends (use of wood, bronze, clay,... in different periods, syle of eyes, drapery,...) are reflected in the list because the list contains only a selection of all statues (naturally). The selection criterium is "scientific value" (whatever that is) which could differ from a criterium: "being typical for the time". Anyway, I will follow the suggestion from the candidature and move the pictures out of the table. Will try not to interfere with your edits. bamse (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Big page!! I thought I could copyedit the entire thing in one go, but I like to save as I go along which is really hard with this article because of size. I'll copy the lead into my sandbox (not linked because I haven't done it yet, but you know where to find it) and work on it there. Then you don't have to worry about interfering and I don't have to edit from the top. BTW-- congrats on the well deserved barnstar. I always learn the most interesting things from your work!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The new version of the lead is in my sandbox. Mostly minor changes with one exception: I've move the last paragraph up toward the top (because it's interesting and explains the list) so readers can skip the history portion if they care to. In my view the history portion is informative and fine as is. I've tweaked the "Statistics" in the article, and will have a look at the "Usage" tomorrow. I'll leave the copy/pasting of the lead to you if you approve of the new version. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will give it a closer look tomorrow. On first glance I noticed: "Artisans and scholars arrived from Korea and China with Buddhist monks in Japan." which to me looks a bit strange. The message should be, that not only Buddhist monks came from Korea and China to Japan, but with them came also scholars and artisans. Just finished moving the pictures out of the table. Going to sleep now. bamse (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

How about a map as in List of National Treasures of Japan (shrines) to fill in the empty space in the statistics section? Better still would be a map marking only the cities in which the treasures are located. I tried that some time ago, but there were to many cities close to each other in Kyoto/Nara prefectures and I don't have a high resolution base map for the area. bamse (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a tricky sentence. Here's the original:"Together with Buddhist monks there arrived artisans and scholars from Korea and China in Japan." I'm not crazy about the rewrite, so will rework that tomorrow. A map in the whitespace would be excellent & the tables could be shrunk back down again, plus it would be a nice visual. The pictures look much better out of the table! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just confused by the phrase: "with Buddhist monks in Japan" which to me reads as if the monks were already in Japan. After having had a look at your sandbox, I must say: excellent job! Only thing I noticed besides the sentence above is "lead by the Kei school" -> "led by the Kei school". The reviewer, Diaa abdelmoneim did not like a sentence from the statistics section: "Together, with the 37 entries located in Kyoto Prefecture, they make up the bulk of this list." Could you have a look at it? I will try to create a map, maybe with the help of the map lab and address some of the points of the review. bamse (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I added a map to the article. The fontsize in the inset map is a little small and I made a new version with larger font. However commons seems to be broken for a couple of days (after an "update"...) and I cannot upload a new file over the old one at the moment. Let me know if anything else could be fixed/improved. bamse (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is done if you want to copy/paste in. I fixed the awkward sentence. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Pasted it in. I will have to think of a more engaging starting sentence though, after the recent comment by Dabomb87. bamse (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Writing the lead

Based on the sources, the first sentence might be recast to indicate the history of the preservation movement in general, and how it specifically applies to the sculptures. I need to spend a little time reading the sources to learn about the subject, so as to rewrite that sentence with any sort of accuracy. Alternately, you might rewrite and I can fix if a little rough. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Another idea I had (after reading some of the recently promoted lists) was to start writing about Japanese sculpture in general, followed by the National Treasure stuff. That would mean to start with the third paragraph and move the first two to the end of the lead. Something like this was done in List of Medal of Honor recipients for World War I or List of tablets on the Memorial to Heroic Self Sacrifice. I continue doing some boring formatting work (adding alt text, converting units, etc). Feel free to think about a better start. If you have any questions about the subject I can try to answer them. In any case there is no need to rush since I still need to add page numbers to the citations which will not happen soon (due to lack of access to the cited book). bamse (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Since you're working on the formatting and the alt text, I'll stay away from the article. Once you've reorganized the lead, I'll have another run through if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I finished the boring formatting and re-organised the lead. As planned, I moved the first two paragraphs to the end of the lead and modified the second-last (previously first paragraph) a bit. Could you have a look at that paragraph to see if there are major mistakes and if it connects well enough to the rest of the lead? Other than that I added a picture to the lead and finally was able to upload a new map (with larger font). Almost forgot, the new lead is located here (If necessary you can edit there or copy it somewhere else).bamse (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the new image in the lead. I've combined the two short paragraphs at the end (which formerly were at the top) for no reason other than it makes the lead appear as though it has fewer paragraphs, and it doesn't seem to impede the flow. I"ve been busy at work, but I want to double check the section about the "scientific value" which seems a bit odd. Also, it might be necessary to put in a transition for the final (now one bigger paragraph) but need to re-read when I have the time (tonight) to fully concentrate. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Good idea to combine them. Indeed you are right. My mistake. After re-reading [9], the "scientific value" referred to something else ("other historical materials"). I will replace "scientific" with "historical or artistic value" based on the same source. bamse (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it would be worthwhile to mention "Important Cultural Properties" here? These are lower-class items and "defined" as "important items" while National Treasures are "items of especially high value". bamse (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If the "Important Cultural Properties" are on the list, then yes; otherwise no. I'll run through again and might tighten and even cut a little. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I copied from your sandbox to my sandbox and cut down quite a bit, removing excess wordiness and tightening the prose. In fact, the short fourth paragraph could be combined with the preceding paragraph, and then the entire lead would be four paragraphs. Have a look and lift out if it seems better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I almost copied it one to one into the list. Two changes: added "consequently" back in and replaced "[law] ...was passed..." with "[law] ... came into force..." since the law was passed a year earlier as far as I know. Also merged two paragraphs as you suggested. No, the Important Cultural Properties are not in the list. I would not dare to generate a list of them (there are far too many...). bamse (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You were not the subject of complaints this week at Otomi language

Hi, I am happy to assure you that I did not even imagine that you were the user that caused me annoyance this week. The post that annoyed me occurred 14 Sept, which is after you left that article. I have posted about this in reply to your protestation at Talk:Otomi_language#Proto-Otomi. I hope this gives you a little more peace of mind. Dale Chock (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Update

Still no word from the Flickr user on the photo of Hemingway's grave. To be honest, this is the first time I've had no reply whatsoever, and I believe it's because the account is registered to a company (Mountain Khakis) rather than an individual. I wouldn't hold out hope. Sorry about that. Lithoderm 20:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry. I had intended to only make a few edits to the article, but it's become more of a rewrite, and I think the images are the least of my worries at this point. Will consider adding new images if/when I finish cleaning up. Thanks for your help! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi Truthkeeper88!
I was wondering, since a user from FAC, have been editing a little bit in the lead for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie.
The user said to avoid repetition.
I've done more myself, what do you think?
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 16:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you've made quite a few changes. I'll scroll through and make comments if necessary. At a first glance it looks fine. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper88,

At the bottom of the article, underneath external links I added more categories.

I listed it as a 2007 television film, in addition to an independent film, and 2005 film.

I did this because I'm not sure if it should be referred to as an indie/2005 film because of the Hamptons FIlm Festival screening or as a television movie pilot (because of Nickelodeon picking it up as a pilot for the television series).

What do you think, should I leave them the way it is, as both?

This also occurs in the lead: "The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie is a 2005..."

Do you think the year should be left blank, as 2005, or 2007?

Thanx!

ATC ^{. Talk} 21:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi ATC.

I've tweaked the beginning of the lead, because the phrase "it tells of" can be improved.

As to your question: the categories are fine, since the film is both a 2005 indy film, and a 2007 film. However, I think you've made a good catch in the lead. I'd change out the 2005 to 2007. If you want you could add another explanatory sentence to the effect that the film was an indy film in 2005, or leave as is because the development of the film is explained in the article itself. My recommendation is not to change much, unless absolutely necessary, at the moment while it's being reviewed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for the barnstar, I appreciate it, but did the article get accepted to FAC status or not yet? ATC ^{. Talk} 11:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you deserve the barnstar for your hard work. Not sure what's happening with the FAC. Looks as though it may have been closed, but I'm not sure why. Was wondering if you knew. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason why is because after a certain amount of time, either delegates User:SandyGeorgia or User:Karanacs, or the FAC director User:Raul654 have to make there final discussion and maybe it didn't meet all the criteria yet. I never knew until recently what WP:Peer review was, but now that I do, I'm going to nominate it there to prepare for FAC. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 20:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've just discovered that a bunch of FACs were closed in one night, so I guess you're correct. I'm also thinking you might have better success with the TV series article because it's a longer piece. Something to think about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You might be right, because there is more references out there, reception is longer, and more information about the show than the film. I'm still leaving the film article at Peer review, but maybe I'll work more on the TV series article to get to FAC. That's not a bad idea. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 11:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Featured!

List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures) has been promoted to featured list! Thanks for the copyediting of the lead section. PS: Not sure why you have it under "Articles I'm currently working on:" on your user page. bamse (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! Well, my user page seems to get the least attention, and I tend to use that list for navigation because I keep as few articles as possible watched, but the heading should be rewritten & the list should be reorganized! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC Jesuit Missions

I was curious (and brave), so I nominated Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos at WP:FAC. bamse (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good, but their isn't enough references in some sections. To be safer, I heard about it recently, I would nominate it at WP:Peer review, which is like a pre-WP:FAC. Let me and/or Truthkeeper88 know if you have any questions! The best, ATC ^{. Talk} 11:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! It's been through a peer review already. bamse (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll watchlist it and see how it goes. Should be fine, I think. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay that's good, although I would suggest that some paragraphs in sections (though its fine that the lead doesn't), e.g. Location, has an entire paragraph without citations. Otherwise than that, good luck! I'll put it on my watchlist too. :) ATC ^{. Talk} 12:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unexpectedly absent for a while. Will have a look at the comments now. bamse (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear that you are back online. Indeed, there is a lot to do, especially about adding references and rephrasing POVs (Savidan's comments). Go ahead and do whatever you feel like. Any help is greatly appreciated. Unfortunately I am not much online at the moment but will focus my online time on this article. bamse (talk) 06:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a sentence in the "Life in the mission towns" section which could do with a copyedit: "Starting in 1770, three years after the expulsion of the Jesuits, the Spanish authorities introduced a policy of forced "castilianization" causing a decline of the number of speakers of native languages." bamse (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Recast a number of sentences. Added wikilinks (but there are more to be done). Responded to two points made by Savidon & responded on the page. Some of Savidon's objections are to Maunus' edits, and some are from a Spanish source, so I'm not much help for either of those -- can't read Spanish. Maybe Maunus will surface to help, otherwise it might be worth considering bringing those sections back to how they were originally. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Great job! Will add more wikilinks and think about how to deal with Maunus edits (which are referenced by a source to which I don't have access). bamse (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I've put back Maunus' orginal edit and attributed to Lippy, for clarification, which might be helpful. Still, the page numbers are necessary. The book is not available to read on google books, unfortunately. Also, I've left a message for another editor from the Mesoamerican group who might (hopefully!) have the book, or have access to Maunus. Hope that's okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Very much okay. Thanks. bamse (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the reply to my query re: the Lippy book and the History section. A couple of solutions come to mind: 1.) if the comments are general comments, then cite the chapter from which they came in Lippy's book, if that would be acceptable; 2.) find other sources for verification (I think I did read something about the reductions in Bolivia being characterisitic for not imposing European culture more than elsewhere, but will have to find that source again); 3.) delete the section and bring the article back to the state it was in before the GAR, w/out the history section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Promising reply by CJLL Wright. I'd prefer solution 1 or 2 over 3. Let's see what CJLL finds. I only added a few wikilinks to the article today. Hopefully I'll be more useful tomorrow. bamse (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a reply to one of Savidan's comments. If I am not mistaken, you rewrote the sentences mentioned in the first two items of his comments. Could you add a note, that they are rewritten or shall I do that? Only open comments as far as I can see are number 4 ("free men") and 5 ("goal"). I would not hesitate to remove the goal-sentence: "For the Jesuits the goal was to create cities in the complete harmony of the paradise in which they had encountered the Indians.", which indeed sounds a bit naive and does not really add to the article in my opinion. The sentence about "free men" needs more explanation. Maybe CJLL's source knows more about that. From my understanding, the indians were at least "free" to stay in the reductions or to leave them. They were neither forcefully recruited to join the missions as far as I read. Certainly living in the missions meant to comply with certain rules imposed by the Jesuits/Spanish. It would be interesting to know to what extent this was the case. I'd like to keep the sentence about "free men" in one way or another as it contrasts with the previous sentence about enslaved indians who were certainly less free. bamse (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't added a note yet because I was waiting for some more information. I have the following: I believe this is the relevant Lippy chapter and page numbers can be extrapolated from here. I don't have a subscription to this service, so can't read the source.

Footnote #31 here is pages 98-100 in Lippy's book, which is consistent with above.

Also, reread this, particularly page 2 which might be used as a source in the history paragraph. This is from footnote #9 in the article. The source argues that the extent of culture changes differed in Bolivia than in North America (which to somewhat verifies the paragraph in question).

Finally, don't know whether or not you have this source. Looks interesting, but unfortunately I can't read it.

Because the sections seems to be a little controversial, it would be good to add at least one more source, and then comment on on the FAC. For now, if you want I can comment that the text has been recast, or wait until the sources have been added and then best for you to comment that sources have been added and content recast, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, is it worth mentioning the "Doctrina of Juli" as per this and this both authored by Groesbeck? Or am I going off track? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll have a look at it. Unfortunately [10] appears to be about other missions and not freely accessible. PS: Did you mean to link to another reference for the Doctrina of Juli above? Both are linked to the same source. bamse (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How about Lippy reference 7, is it from the same pages (98-100)? The Doctrina of Juli is implicitly mentioned in: "They were not allowed to establish settlements on the frontier; instead they built chapter houses, churches and schools in pre-existing settlements, such as La Paz, Potosí and La Plata (present day Sucre)." I would not write more, as it is not directly connected with the Chiquitos missions. Will reread ethnicsurvival. bamse (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just logged on to reply -- after spending some time thinking about how to deal with this -- to find that some nice person has added the page numbers!! I had guessed that the pages were 98-100 (but was reluctant to go with only a guess) and seems I was correct. I think that now you can add a comment to the FAC that the section has been edited and page numbers provided for the source. Hopefully that will suffice. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, looks like in the interim a good samaritan has sourced the history info to the relevant page numbers. Do you need any others, I'd found a couple of spanish-language sources that discuss those points as well.--cjllw ʘ TALK 08:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the Spanish-language sources, just out of curiosity. Just joined the two references to Lippy. bamse (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor copyedit

Hi Truthkeeper88,
I was wondering, since I added a little more information in the filming section I was wondering if you could do a minor copyedit to it.
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 00:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but not until tomorrow. Something's wrong with my internet service; being fixed today. Until then I keep losing connection, so can't really do any editing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I understand. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The good news is that I'm back online; the bad news is I have a lot of work to catch up! I've had a quick look at the new section and tweaked a bit, but the flow still needs some work. Won't get back until much later tonight or late tomorrow afternoon. But, I'm making a start! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanx! I also liked your idea about getting The Naked Brothers Band television series to WP:FAC. I started copyediting, but when you get the chance, I was wondering if you could help me with it. Thanx again! ATC ^{. Talk} 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the TV series article has more potential for development than the film article, and you might find more traction for GA & then FA with the longer and more detailed article. Anyway, I started with some small formatting. If you add more detail to the season 1, season 2, etc., sections the images will format better. I'll swing by tomorrow to have a look at how things are going. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tamazight again

Hi Truthkeeper88! I've been editing Central Morocco Tamazight somewhat recently, and I feel like it could use another look over, especially the sections after "Orthography". I'm still somewhat unsure as to what needs to be done to improve its status, other than figuring out the origins of the Latin orthography. Mo-Al (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll have a look.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Naked Brothers sandbox

The sandbox is here. You've already seen the first 3 versions. Version 4 is simply a renamed version 3. Version 5 has the plot and characters in separate paragraphs. It still needs copyediting and cleanup, but I don't have time tonight. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanx for all your help and I hope you feel better from the flu! ATC ^{. Talk} 23:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That's okay, I hope you're feeling better! Anyway, now I do think it is a good idea to copy and paste in the fifth version BOTH the cast and characters and the plot into the article. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

National Treasures of Japan (paintings)

Hi Truthkeeper88! Unfortunately the Jesuit Missions did not make it for FA despite of your good work. I'll let them rest for a while and maybe get back to them later, when I have access to better sources. Since you did a good job with the featured List of National Treasures of Japan (sculptures), I wonder if you could have a look over the lead section (and "Statistics" and "Usage") of the similarly designed List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings). No need to rush and feel free to ask questions if anything is unclear. bamse (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot, the aim is the same as for the sculpture list: WP:FLC. For the lead this means: "It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria." bamse (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bamse! At the moment I have the flu, so am out for a few more days, but if you're not in a rush, I think I should be back by mid-week or so. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hope you recover fast from the flu. Take your time. I also put the list up for peer review, though I don't expect much response from that. bamse (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This might be helpful for the copyediting. bamse (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

I copy and pasted everything in the appropriate sections for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie article. I have a question though, in the plot it says "fictional" rock band; the band isn't faux but their fame is. All the band members (Nat, Alex, David, Thomas, Josh) are really the band members (apart from Rosalina (Allie), Cole, Cooper, or Jesse). So, although their is a little faux in the band, most of it is real, but there fame at the time isn't. What do you think would be a better alternative to the text? Because "fictional" is no longer in the 5th section of the sandbox or the article. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good catch. I've added it back for now, but when I have more time will go through the histories of the various versions to find exactly where it was. I do think that it should be mentioned that the band is fictional (i.e. part of a story line in a movie). I think the both sections seems fine now; what's your opinion? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but as you said before it might still need a little polishing up. ATC ^{. Talk} 15:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, what do you think is the next thing that we should do to the article? ATC ^{. Talk} 16:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The next thing is to eliminate the long quotations and replace with paraphrases. Why don't you dig around for policy on quotations, and then decide which you really want to keep. Utimately I don't think there should be more than one long quotation in an article of this length. Once you've decided which to eliminate, I'll change them to paraphrases. In the meantime, I'm catching up with work in the real world, and need to work on other copyediting as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, take your time. Happy editing! ATC ^{. Talk} 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it, and look forward to spending some time fighting vandalism. Am I correct in assuming that Huggle doesn't work for a Mac computer? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer review for The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

Hi Truthkeeper88,
I wanted to know if you could follow Ruhrfisch advice with the alt text for the lead image - [11].
Also do you think there is anything else that needs to be fixed in the article, as Ruhrfisch said it needed a lot more copyediting?
Thanx!
ATC ^{. Talk} 00:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the next section to work on is the cast section. The repetitive "starred as" needs to be removed. You have two choices: either replace with this version in my sandbox that eliminates the words and uses em dashes. If you want you can go ahead and copy out of the sandbox into the article and see how it looks. The second option is more complicated, but maybe better. It involves embedding the name of each actor in the text where the character is mentioned. It's a bigger fix and I won't have time to work on it for a day or two. If you'd like I could create a version in my sandbox first so you can see what it looks like. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I've seen featured articles use this: "..." never emdashes, but probably putting it into the plot is the best option. ATC ^{. Talk} 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also this version is an old version, as I no longer talked about the cast member's "reality/acting career" and was moved to the casting section. I'll eliminate that text for you. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 01:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, theirs an "recurring stars" section in the "cast" section. Will we have to add that as a text in the plot too? ATC ^{. Talk} 01:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an alternative to using em dashes in MOS by replacing with en dashes because it's a list. Also, if you decide to go that route, I'd go ahead and use the actual symbol from the formatting palette instead of the markup. If you decide to embed in the text then the section would be redundant and deleted. You'd lose a lot of material and the article would be shorter. It's a big change that you should spend some time thinking about before committing to it. In the meantime, I'll format the list correctly with the en dashes and replace the section so you can see how it looks. Then I'd start working on embedding if you decide to do that. There's no hurry, so it's fine to try each alternative. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding to above: I really like the design of Transformers (film) which is an FA. The cast section is placed lower down in the article and although there is some repetition, they used bullets for the cast. That might be a good compromise. Also, I think its worth having a look at other FA films found here to get some ideas about improvement. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

And one more comment: have a look at this short FA film article - 200 (Stargate SG-1). Here the cast in embedded in the text. This is also a nice article, and I think closer to what you're working on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I like those suggestions, but first I think we should replace the "starred as" with emdashes, and then we should work on in your sandbox, a way to add it in the plot section. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 20:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see your edits in the sandboxes, I liked your third cast list, although I think it should be more specific (as it was in the original cast sections, and include the "Recurring cast" section as well. Why I don't I add a few more things in that section I was talking about, and you could undo or even fix the minor tweaks I make. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 20:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and make any edits you want. I had an hour to play around with different versions this morning, but ran out of time before I finished the third one. Making a big change like this is easier in a sandbox. BTW, sorry about the messy sandbox -- working on too many articles! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I made changes here: User:Truthkeeper88/Sandbox#Cast version three. What do you think? :) ATC ^{. Talk} 21:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

You can fix whatever you think should be corrected. And let me know if you think it might be too long. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You've made some interesting changes. What I see now is a character section embedded in the plot section. But, your changes also give more information about the characters than previous versions such as how they dress and how they act. As is, I don't think it'll work. But, one solution would be to have a "Chararacter" section where the characters are described, (using the descriptions you've added) with the name of the actor in parentheses. If this is done, then I'd suggest cutting the plot section down a lot, as I believe Ruhrfish mentioned. Another possiblity is to name rename "Plot" to "Plot and characters" but I'm not sure that's the format for film articles. This Transformers (film) article does have a plot section and then a "Cast and character" section further down. 200 (Stargate SG-1) only has a short plot section but no cast/character section. A suggestion is to spend some more time looking at FA film articles to see how other editors deal with the character/cast issue and then decide how you'd like to organize this article. Ultimately anything can be changed, so if one organization doesn't work, another can be substituted. In the meantime, I'll set up a sandbox dedicated to the Naked Brothers and do what I did before, create a few different versions. I am pretty busy with work at the moment, and I need to swing over and have a look at another article, so give me time to get this all done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's cool. I'm glad that there are sandboxes for all of these articles. It is convenient! Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 20:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are very welcome - I like the rewritten lead very much. At some point in a peer review all you can do is point out things that need to be fixed and trust that the editors will fix them (or find someone to help). I appreciate your kind words, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

FLC List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings)

List of National Treasures of Japan (paintings) received the first comments here. I replied to 3,4,5,6. 1. and 2. concern the lead text and still need to be addressed. Can you help with it? I'll reread the lead section now and see if I can make sense of the first comment. bamse (talk) 11:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed a typo (sujects->sujets) in the lead. Other than what is mentioned in the second comment ("With the rise of" and "With the evolution") I don't see a problem. bamse (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had a watch on that page, but for some reason missed the comments. If the lead is the same as in my sandbox, with the exception of the typo, I'll rework the lead in the sandbox if that's okay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've added a dedicated sandbox for Japanese art here. I'm having difficulty with the first sentence, I think because I don't know enough about the subject. Were there not religious paintings in Japan prior to the introduction of Buddhism? Did the introduction of Buddhism cause a resurgence in religious paintings? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea with the dedicated Japanese sandbox. I can see another lead section go there soon (not yet) ;-) Since User:Diaa abdelmoneim changed his vote to "support" maybe it is not necessary to change anything in the painting lead except for ("With the rise of"/"With the evolution"). I like the new version of the first paragraph in your non-Japanese sandbox. If you are finished with that paragraph it should be incorporated in the article in my opinion. As for religious paintings in Japan prior to Buddhism; before Buddhism, there was only Shinto (kind of nature spirit religion). With some exceptions, Shinto is not known for paintings or sculptures. As far as I know, back then, there were no Shinto paintings at all. So the mainland Buddhist religious paintings were the first religious paintings in Japan.bamse (talk) 15:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the answer. I've rewritten again, hopefully better, here. Need to stop for a while, but will return later in the day. Feel free to work in the sandbox, or copy/paste the new version. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Looks perfect to me. I copied the first paragraph from you non-Japan sandbox and the rest from your Japan sandbox.bamse (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

When you have spare time, since I know you have a lot on your plate at the moment, I was wondering if you could help me revise the paragraph below, that I rearranged in the right order and added a little bit more to in the plot section, as stated below (I did not save this yet, since I want it to have good grammar):

Brothers Nat and Alex, aged nine and six respectively, are members of a fictional band called The Silver Boulders. Cameras follow the band members through their personal lives, and when they notice them at those times, they shout at the cameraman, in order to have their privacy. Their popularity is the result of having been signed to a record contract—on music executive John B. Williams' label Who's the Man Records. The film begins with Nat and Alex giving an introduction to their documentary film and then there is a limo shown driving on a bridge in New York City. Inside the limo their is an enthusiastic girl-fan, who gets overly excited after she wins "Today's Big Win Question" on the radio, in which she receives two-free tickets at the group's upcoming concert. That show took place in the Hammerstein Ballroom in which the band performs "Motormouth". After the show, they talk to the audience about starting the band. Then a clip is playing from the video "Crazy Car".
ATC ^{. Talk} 01:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi ATC! See here, first paragraph, for the rewrite. If you like it, go ahead and copy and paste into the article. Or, feel free to add some tweaks before you copy into the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanx! Also, with your suggestions for the paraphrases, these are the ones that you can revise (when you get the chance, of course):

And in 2007 Draper explained to the New York Times: "Nat decided he wanted to film his own sitcom, so we did a film called Don’t Eat Off My Plate...I pretended to interview his friends and do a documentary.''

As Draper recalls:

"Julianne (Moore) was the first one to shoot a scene in it. She had to go away to do a real movie. I said, 'If you were in it, it would lend some credibility to the idea that Nat is a star. Can you do it Thursday?' And she said yes! We found this building and put a couple chairs in it, and made it like the backstage of a talk show, really funky—like New York talk show green rooms really are. She and Nat both did it in one take. He was surprisingly great. I thought, 'Wow!' He's really good at this acting thing."—Polly Draper[12]

Let me know if you think any others should be corrected, and I'll try to find more. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Those two have been paraphrased. I think you should identify others you're willing to give up as direct quotations and I can convert those as well. I can't remember exactly what the comment was about the quotations on the peer review, but something to the effect that there were too many quotations. Probably the article should only have two or three direct quotations, at the most. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

One more (and let me know if you want me to suggest more):

Michael Wolff explains that "...We made this film and we had never had any thought of it being a television show. We just made it to be a film. We had an agent who thought, 'Oh we're going to get a ton of money...' we did all this market research and it tested as high as Shrek with kids and they come out singing, 'Cray-ay-ay-ay-ay-zy Car.'"
And I'm deleting this, as it is redundant to the other quote by Albie Hecht:

Hecht recalls in People magazine, "I could see there was an audience for this. They're real kids, real brothers, making real music."[29]
Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 01:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've paraphrased the Michael Wolff quotation in the Reception section. It's getting better, but I still think a few more quotations can be eliminated. Let me know of others you're willing to give up. My schedule is starting to pile up so my turn around time might slow a bit in the next few weeks, just so you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. When you get the chance, I've found a couple of more quotations that you can paraphrase:
Releases and debuts:
Hecht explained that he had an independent production deal with Nickelodeon and told them, "You know this kind of film has to be on Nickelodeon. We should do a television show."

Done.

Development:
Their father Michael Wolff explains: "My oldest son [Nat] is just an amazing singer-songwriter; amazing pianist. When he was about four or five years old, he just started playing. He learned all the major and minor chords on the piano. I said, 'How did you learn them?' He said, 'Dad, they’re right here.' I said, 'What are those chords?' He said, 'These are my proud chords.' And he could just do it."[7]
Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 22:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed the above slightly, per the source, to explain that the boys were exposed to music since they were born and so it makes sense that they had a band as pre-schoolers. Hope that's ok. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

When you are available, I was wondering if you remembered what was next to the suggestions on WP:Peer review for the article. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk}

I also have a question. I tried looking at WP:PLOTS#Citations for the answer, but am still not sure about my question. When you don't cite the plot, does it still have to be from the sources used in the rest of the article. Because their aren't enough sources conveying everything I put that describes it. The film, I've watched and fast forwarded on iTunes through scenes in order to get the important scenes. Why doesn't an admin from Wiki when evaluating FAC articles watch (the particular film on the FAC nomination list) for themselves to make sure that everything is accurate, because when you said that people could watch it for themselves; can't someone just make up everything, although it may be written nicely? ATC ^{. Talk} 21:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to message you today about the next task. The alt text needs revision, basically back to how TFOWR wrote it, without the names of the characters. I think I can fix that right now. Also the caption needs to rewritten, something like: "From top to bottom .... " and then fill in the names of actors shown on the DVD cover. If you can start that, I'll copyedit if necessary.

As to your question: first, my sense is that the FAC is backed up and the reviewers don't have time to watch the movies. But, you bring up a good point. It could be well written but absolutely wrong, and who'd know? Generally editors familiar with a topic review specific FACs but you're writing about something, I think, not a lot of editors are familiar with. As for the citations, when I'm writing about fiction, I source as much as I can, even the plot, and delete anything I can't find a source for. However, it is acceptable, in some cases to use the primary source (the book) for the plot synopsis. I think Ruhrfish mentioned the plot should be shortened. Honestly, I don't know enough about film articles to answer your question. The FA articles I linked previously don't the plot synopsis sourced, see 200 (Stargate SG-1). In the meantime, if you know of anyone else to ask, that might be a good idea. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanx! Actually, a very known Wiki editor, User:Erik is phenomenal with film articles, as TFOWR is with photo uploads on Wiki; I'll ask Erik. ATC ^{. Talk} 00:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I added info in the caption, as you said, but for the infobox template; I've never seen a featured article with a long description besides two words or so. I've seen them in general pics in an article, though. Did I do something wrong, because something doesn't look right. Check here. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The caption is different than the alt text -- doesn't need the description. The names are enough, and I've only used the actors' names because it gets confusing that some of the actors have the same name as the character. You can change it if it's wrong. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what is next on the agenda? Should I try to get rid of the third citation tag(s), unless absolutely necessary, and then do you think there would be much else to do? And then do u think I should give it one last chance as a nominee at FAC? Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 22:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The archived review is here. The first item on the list and the last item on the list involve fixing sources, so I think that's next. Also, looking at the review, Ruhrfish does recommend adding identifying information to the photo caption, but I think it should be done in such a way so as not to have a huge caption. I can work a little to improve it. Finally, it honestly needs another really good copyedit. Either I'm getting too close to this material and losing perspective or I'm simply not a good enough writer for FA status. Either way, I'm tempted to have you find someone for a really ruthless final edit (in other words delete anything that's rough). I'm not very good at being ruthless. For now, let me give this some thought -- I'm starting to get really busy, but might be able to get in another copyedit by the weekend. Also, I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to ask Ruhrfish to take another look, now that the changes they recommended have been added. Then, once all that's done, maybe think about FAC, depending on how backed up they are. If they're really backed up, I'd wait, add some of the same kinds of changes to the TV show article while waiting, and submit in the new year. BTW, which are the third citation tag(s)? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You've been doing a great job so far, but maybe it takes more than one copyeditor to improve an article to FAC. The third citation tag(s), are, remember when you told me that there should only be one or two at most, well they're still three of them after sentences in the article. Although, there is one that has three because that one in particular supports my fact about something requires three reliable sources to answer what I was saying; that one is about Worldwide Biggies and Albie Hecht in the Releases and debuts section. Thanx! ATC ^{. Talk} 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Replied here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)