User talk:Renamed user efB5zCgPvkrQ7C

Archive diffs: recent—incl. postmodern caption contest; before that—reflection; prev; prev; after that, you'd have to go digging for retirement episodes

Goya

It will be two weeks before I get my hands on the Hugues book, for the moment I'm working of Connell, who is more of a millatarly historian, and not stong on art critism. I have some other general art books that cover the series in one page, but I dont want to get into that. Google books is no help here. So it will be what ever journals I can dig up for a while. What have you. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No I don't have JSTOR access anymore (re your talk page question). I got nuttin'... Outriggr (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In reply to our talk page question, fine. That is slightly less than what I have. I'm going to go the JSTOR route, and Liz gave me access to some bits and pieces before she vanished. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the star. I told my Mom, and she seemed quite pleased.Jane (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Miseries

I've put this up for DYK, which I hope is ok Template_talk:Did_you_know#Les_Grandes_Mis.C3.A8res_de_la_guerre. Cheers, Johnbod (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought it was a bit OTT, & should be given a "said to be". Becker disagrees with it - he talks of (not a quote from him, but a paraphrase I've added to the Goya) "a wider European tradition of art about war and its effect on civilian life ... especially of Dutch artists depicting the Eighty Years War with Spain, and German 16th century artists such as Hans Baldung." and also says (this too rather extreme imo) "Callot's rather dispassionate view of war" & says the lack of identification "argues against attaching an anti-French or antiwar interpretation to the series"! A prima facie reading of the caption verses for example, gives an alls well that ends well absolutist story, but I think there's more to it than that. I think both sides need to be put. I think the current name is right - 2nd choice would be Les Ms & Malheurs .... Has the Goya been put up? I'll check - yes, but they are 3 days apart. Cheers Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mill

What are the odds on that! Great minds.... Johnbod (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think titles are necessarily usefiul for the Dutch paintings - hardly any are certainly original, & many of those assigned by dealers & curators over the years are demonstrably mistaken or misleading, or have many versions. They are all on the picture files - though very often not in the latest form used by owning museums etc. But thanks for tidying the en dashes etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Les Grandes Misères de la guerre

On September 7, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Les Grandes Misères de la guerre, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

William James Sidis

[O. restored start of topic:]
I have undone your edit to this article. If Sidis is so commonly cited as the most intelligent person ever, it shouldn't be so hard to find such a citation. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Outriggr, I'm sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way--I had no intention of doing so; if you took offense at my tone, I apologize. At the same time, though, the request wasn't so outlandish, and I saw that JayHenry (with a bitey remark of his own, I must say) easily fixed it, by simply moving a reference (a duplicate, actually). Seriously, in relation to such a strong claim, if you see someone say "just look it up in a Google Books search," how would you react? If you want to route around me (I'm not sure what it means, but it doesn't sound good) that's fine. It's my loss, since you have contributed lots of valuable stuff--I'm an Auden fan myself. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my harsh tone. I think you misinterpreted Outriggr's comment however. He wasn't saying "google is my reference" he was saying "you can use google to easily determine that this statement is not even remotely controversial". Outriggr and I have often commiserated about the culture of drive-by tagging. It's so much easier to do something like Lemons are yellow^{[citation needed]}, than to improve the encyclopedia, that the net effect is tens of thousands of defaced articles, when that energy could have been spent making improvements instead. Sorry if my frustration with this general trend was unfairly taken out on your specific action. --JayHenry (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Jay, thanks for your note. I think I understood his comment very well, but chose to take it literally--perhaps in a pointy way, I readily admit. My drive-by tagging days are long gone, and I think if you go through my edits (if you got nothing better to do) you'll see that I'm a stickler for referencing and have added references to articles I care very little about--in ref templates even--if only to make these pages look cleaner. I share your feelings about wasted energy. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Drmies. Thank you for writing again. I could never blank someone's comments from my talk page without feeling like a bit of an ass afterward, but at the same time, it occurred to me that it's essentially the same action as undoing my edit on WJS within 2 minutes (it looked reflexive to me), an edit which I did provide a rationale for. (I appreciate JayHenry clarifying re Google etc., as that is what I meant.)

Here are the issues at hand. I know a fair bit about WJS, and have edited that article at times over a two- or three-year period. Does that matter? Only in that it provides some context for why I might remove a citation-needed tag. Now, why might a person add such a tag (anywhere)? There need to be reasons, and there weren't. It is a lazy and feeble action when it is done without rationale, without context, when it is marked as a minor edit, etc. etc. (Originating edit: [1]. Citation-needed people don't get a free pass because they're "protecting the encyclopedia". If anything, they're being simplistic about the effect of individual propositions on constructing knowledge, but that's an argument for another day, even if I could make it.)

So when I saw this "minor" edit, I went to Google Books, because I didn't have the biography of WJS on me (I do now). I did so not because I saw a problem with the statement, but because I was curious about how easy the statement would be to cite, in the trivial, low-quality way that Wikipedians are often satisfied with. And if I wanted to cite it, I would have done what JayHenry did, which is to copy the [1] to the end of the sentence. The problem is, that's a citation to a book about Asperger's syndrome published by what appears to be a rather non-prestigious press (or that was my perception upon landing here[2]; I might be wrong). I didn't want to cite that; I thought it was a low-quality citation with respect to the subject of the article. Obviously, JayHenry, I'm not criticizing your action (thank you!)--you understand what I'm saying I'm sure.

Drmies, in your original post here you said "If Sidis is so commonly cited as the most intelligent person ever...". No, the article says he's cited as one of the most intelligent people ever. This is a synthetic statement, meant to give the reader a good, quick impression of why WJS has an encyclopedia article. It's valuable to say that. By saying "cited as", we avoid making the claim in Wikipedia's voice that he "was" one of the most intelligent people ever. When using "tropes" like "most intelligent ever", there is no "fact", no "truth", just the matter of how the subject has been presented in the past. With stuff this basic, Wikipedia looks foolish to put five random-quality footnotes in support of it, as if there were some internal, existential debate among Wikipedia editors as to whether he was among the most intelligent ever. It's not Wikipedia's job to worry about that.

When someone adds a citation-needed tag, I want a reason, a case-specific counter-argument. There aren't a lot of things I know much about, which is the first reason why I don't add such tags. Do you disagree about the content of the WJS statement with respect to the real world, and not with respect to what Wikipedia editors "feel" should be cited? That's not a rhetorical question. I sincerely believe that Wikipedians need to stop using deductive reasoning, such as—

• "All claims that something is x [say, "very intelligent"] are 'strong', and need a citation" [note I am actually using your term "strong claim" above]
• "This is a claim that someone is very intelligent"
• "Therefore, this needs a citation and I own that tag until someone adds it"

—to determine what should be cited, and leave it to people who know something about the subject. (I am not saying this in a flippant or dismissive way.) When you know something about WJS, you know that the whole reason he has an encyclopedia article is because he has been invoked ceaselessly in Western culture as one of the most intelligent people who ever lived. (Whatever that means, sure--but like I said, it's not Wikipedia's job to worry about what that means.) As it stands now, the whole weight of that claim appears to fall on a book on Asperger's syndrome published by Nova Publishers. I don't consider that an improvement to the article.

Anyway, it's not a big deal, it's forgotten, and I don't want to turn this into a debate, especially here. I almost wrote this anyway before you wrote to me again, but stubbornness got the better of me! Outriggr (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note, Outriggr. I don't agree with everything you say, and while I don't wish to turn this into a debate either, you seem to be suggesting that if something is common knowledge among connaisseurs, then it need not be cited. BTW, I did glance quickly at the history (newest 50) and saw you had edited a few times, and looked at your user page as well, esp. since the user who placed the tag there seemed to be a drive-by tagger. So don't think I reverted simply out of some knee-jerk reaction; reflexive it may have been since I got there through Recent Changes. The lag between your edit and my reversal should actually suggest to you that I looked before I reverted.

  For the benefit of those like me and that rather trigger-happy editor, I'll find another source to take the weight of that statement; I do believe that it is a claim that needs a quote (and I do like to put my money where my mouth is, unlike that other editor). Well, if there's a hatchet here, let's bury it, since we both have better things to do--sleep being one of those things! Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 04:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

One of the first portraits I fell in love with long ago, painted by one of the all-time sarcastic pricks. With best regards and respect, JNW (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:WBFAN restructure per your suggestion

Discussion taking place here. Stalled out. I tagged it with an RfC. --Moni3 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Rick Block also pinged me a while ago. The truth is, my perception is that Rick doesn't like the idea. I expect he's put a lot of work into whatever bot/programming effort makes this list update automatically, and it is good of him to entertain new ideas, but I've no desire to push it. If it's a lot of work for him to change this system, well, it is after all just a Wikipedia-space page of interest to a core group. (I wouldn't apply the "defer to the bot programmer" approach to article space, even a little bit, but this is different!) There is always the case for leaving well enough alone. If I say this on the talk page there, it would probably increase the likelihood of stalling something that might change, so I'm not going to. ;) To be honest I'm surprised that this much has come from the MfD. That certainly shows a good-faith effort on everyone's part. Outriggr (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I don't like ideas either, but I get used to them. Other times I hate ideas and I throw a fit. Whatever tickles my fancy. I understand this will be a case of consensus and majority rule since no one really likes the list other than to identify themselves as an achiever of a list of things. You suggested otherwise. I suggested more otherwise. It's up to the rest of FA producers to like it or not. My idea will probably get rejected more out of apathy than anything else. So be it. I did what I thought would help by making a suggestion. --Moni3 (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Vid

Good drama on Lehman Brothers here. V good it is. Oh and thanks for the fairy cat! Ceoil (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Oroonoko‎

Please cease your inappropriate removal of the refimprove tag from this article. It is a featured article with massive amounts of unsourced material. This is simply not acceptable. If you are NOT going to fix the problems, please leave the tag for someone else who will. The article will be taken to WP:FAR shortly if the issues are not addressed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I've been around Wikipedia long enough to understand that I can't debate that. I mean, it is impossible to debate that—with people who have entrenched and aggressive attitudes toward articles that are exemplary by any actual READER'S standard. Outriggr (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks!

I appreciate the welcome box and the barn star. I have this interesting book about Vermeer and eventually I'll add information to all his paintings. This one will be in the U.S. until November, and I'm hoping I can see it. -- CountryDoctor (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! My arch-enemy Ceoil is a Vermeer fan and might be interested in your work as well. Outriggr (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I left a note on Ceoil's page, asking him to look over what I've been doing with Vermeer art. I don't have a lot of experience with writing on art, and if you see anything I'm doing wrong, please tell me. Thanks again for the barnstar. CountryDoctor (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your name is mentioned

At WP:ANI#Unexplained Admin Abuse by User:KillerChihuahua and User:SlimVirgin. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look later... time to walk Dogriggr. It's a good thing I'm not an admin, or I'd be in the headline! Hehe. Outriggr (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I could spend the rest of the evening writing an essay, but why? More noise. If they won't pay attention to an assertion of fact about the existence of "in-prose citation" by Bishonen (referencing me), I'm not going to add anything. Nor am I going to add anything by pointing out the rhetorical inconsistency of wanting more (more-) specific citations to works that are very specialized and "no one" can access—everyone wants the ability to "verify a sentence" that no one will ever verify because they "don't have the references". Nor am I going to add anything by pointing out that the function of an encyclopedia is to give the reader a general sense of the subject, and starting points for further research (especially in the humanities—if you want to say referencing standards should be different for astronomical tables, fair enough). And if the article does this very well, then it's one of "Wikipedia's best". A reader who wants a deeper treatment uses the references given as a starting point, reflects on the literature (holistically) in a deeper manner, and if they then find a problem in the article against the literature, they can talk about it on the talk page or actively edit the article. A reader who has the scholarly means to question a very specific assertion in a well-edited encyclopedia article does not need the encyclopedia's help ("verification"). They can talk about it, suggest areas for improvement, but my point is that the reactionary footnote mania, with respect to articles like this, is doing much less for anyone than is commonly supposed, and often gives a false sense of comfort. (How often does someone on FAC say "the cited source doesn't match what the article says"?) An even better point is that referencing standards on this project could be contextualized in terms of the topic at hand—and this particular article is neither so synthetic nor so "current-event-web-only" that it needs footnotes everywhere. If I want more info on this novel, which has a few centuries of analysis behind it, then I go get the literature referenced. It's very easy, yet apparently, everything I've said is radical thinking indicative of ghostly article ownership!

Well, I thought that was how wikis worked, and just as I come to understand this, the wiki-world has turned and everyone is a paranoid "fact"-hound. On an anonymous volunteer project, we need to treat articles with good faith, as we do the editors, and assume that that the article's contents are "innocent" until proven guilty (make the BLP exception to that if you like), especially on non-controversial articles like this that are obviously extended labours by people who know what they're talking about. (But the good-faith thing is not about specific personalities; it's just about "I can see that a non-crackpot has been editing this article extensively and they appear to know what they're talking about".)

I guess none of this addresses the formalisms of Featured Articles as they are understood by extraordinarily one-size-fits-all thinkers, but who cares at this point. For example, Johnbod's Dutch Golden Age painting is awesome, but I have to assume at the same time that the new brand of editors think it's shit, because "not everything is referenced" (that doesn't even mean anything; is the intellectual capitulation of this project such that no one will even point out that that is a meaningless statement? What would "everything" look like?). Outriggr (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)