User talk:Ceoil

I saw you removed the "See also" link to 1798 in poetry at the article on Wordsworth's "Tintern Abbey". [1] I think a link of some sort from each page to the other is helpful for readers. For this page, it helps any reader who might be curious about what other works were being written and published at the same time or about the same time. They can then get information on other poems to contrast or compare with this one (perhaps Coleridge's "Frost at Midnight" or "France: An Ode" -- there could be a slew of different reasons to find it useful to compare poems or read up on poets or poetry movements from the same era, and it would be very useful to serious students, but also useful to people who just want to browse). The year-in-poetry pages are meant to be about all things poetry in each particular year, whether poems, books of poems, poets, movements or events, so the direct, one-click link between the poem and the year page seems right. It doesn't matter to me whether the link is in the article prose or in a "See also" list, and I don't think the link needs to be prominent. Please tell me what you think. If you prefer, we could move this discussion to the article talk page, although I don't think it much matters. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fair enough thats a good argument. I normally dont like see also sections as they replicate links from the article body, but in this case I think you are right. I'll reinstate. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the refs are giving page nos only - do you know which book they were taken from? Ceoil ^sláinte 20:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume "Woodring, Carl" in the "Bibliography" section, but it's only an assumption. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked Google Books for Woodrung's book. They only offer "snippet" views, so it's difficult to confirm. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Thanks. I don't have the link handy, but there was an RfC a while back about various types of year links, and it was the consensus (which I don't like) that these links to "year in ---" pages not be "hidden" (I think that's the word) like this: 1798. At another point, another editor said he preferred that these links not be in "See also" sections but in the text. Personally, I think a "See also" link at the bottom of the page is less intrusive in the article than something like "was published in 1798 (see 1798 in poetry)", which tend to occur near the very top of the page. When I can, I try to add these links lower down in the article, but I add them wherever the publication year pops up (no reason not to link to the year written, but the year-in-poetry pages themselves seldom mention years written). Thanks again! -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I find thoes years in articles very interesting when aditing art history pages; its interesting to see what other artists were active at the time, and it gives good context. I suppose I though that a catg would be sufficient, but prob the avg reader does not notice them. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some do! [2] The numbers gradually go down the earlier you go in the years-in-poetry pages. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for 1798 in art [3] -- not bad. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil me old mate, you once gave me some advice when I had a spat with Giano and, in the interests of Anglo-Irish relations, I'd like to return the favour. Malleus is very similar in his approach to Giano; he's an excellent editor but easily offended, and when he gets upset he lashes out. I don't believe he's got anything against the Irish at all, and clearly he's not familiar with all the Irish articles so couldn't really pass judgement on them. He was expecting trouble with editing the Manchester bombing article from the beginning because anything to do with The Troubles always seems to end up in acrimony. I'm sure the comment about all the Irish articles being shite was actually just because he felt his worst expectations were being fulfilled and he was really referring to the ones I've just mentioned. Obviously, all I know about Malleus is from what I've read on various discussion pages but, from what I've seen, once he's annoyed he doesn't do civility, he doesn't do apologies and he doesn't accept apologies gracefully. However, he can also be very kind and helpful and quite often he will accept an apology when things have calmed down. I'm not condoning or defending anything that was said last night but, at the end of the day, people are what they are and usually they don't change. What annoys me is when others who aren't involved jump in and start threatening people with sanctions. I'm sure that both you and Malleus are quite capable of looking after yourselves and either sorting the problem out or just avoiding each other, without the school prefects getting involved. One other thing I'm sure of is that if Malleus reads this he'll tell me to fuck off and mind my own business - but, as I like you both, I'll take that risk :) Richerman (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richerman, you post is very much aprreciated and I think you are prob right. I think things went from bad to worse when others jumped in, and statements made by them were attributed to me. I cetrainly did not have the intention to derail yer GAN, and I'm not usually so pushy. For being a pain and labouring a point like that I apologise to ye both. For the other stuff, and esp with Fred and John, I do not care what people like them think. How dare they follow and bait and then condesend me like that. As a small aside, I think the article is overall very good work. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite few people seem to watch Malleus's talk page page because he's very active and there's always something going on there. It can be very entertaining at times too! However, there are some who enjoy joining in the fray and it's usually not helpful. I'm going to a funeral on Wednesday of a good friend who commited suicide for no good reason other than he was depressed and not thinking logically, and it really has put life in perspective. Funnily enough he's from a big Catholic family, no doubt with Irish roots - the buggers get everywhere! Richerman (talk) 21:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that Richerman. I had some bad news myself this week, and yeah perspective. It is a bit ridiculous to get upset by things on the internet. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! - keep well. Richerman (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the frame of mind to tell you (Richerman) or anyone else to "fuck off". It was a silly incident escalated by the comments of others, one other editor in particular, who transformed what should have been nothing into something. Ceoil was right, the dates were wrong; a straightforward mistake introduced during copyediting that could have been very easily fixed. So far as I'm concerned it's over, and we should move on now. Richerman is right about my attitude to apologies; I rarely give them and I never demand them, as I fundamentally believe that nothing is ever entirely the fault of one side or the other, and in any case only God can forgive. All we humans can do is to forget. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine by me, and I think your analysis is correct. Its over, the past. I have no hard feelings or ill will against you, what so ever, and I wish you all the best with the page, which I think is well on its way to being exemplarly. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's just the question of those two pints of Guinness that were offered..... :) Richerman (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be quicker than that on this page Richerman, that offer is long gone! I can offer you Taytos, though. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell! - not like me to miss a free pint! And I always thought that Golden Wonder invented the flavoured crisp as they were the first ones I ever saw. Strangely the Tayto article says they first produced them in 1959 whilst the Golden Wonder article credits them with doing it in 1953. Looks like someone needs to research this important bit of history. Richerman (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, you have softened me, so just this one. Just dont tell anybody else. Slaint. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World peace on Wiki: now back to the jokes at Moni's house. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And Richerman, I consider Golden Wonder to be an Brit imperialist tool of the man! I've never eaten them, nor shall I my friends, or neighbours. Tayto are go. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, wonderful- the good name of the Irish is restored. Now, according the The Idler crisps were invented in America (Good god, maybe we'll have to call them chips after all!) and the flavours were invented by Golden Wonder. Something else I've just read though (Potato chips) says that Taytos invented the ready salted crisp and the flavoured crisp - oh the shame! Richerman (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, I'm beginning to worry about you, dude. I just eat the things, I dont read about their history or anything. Long as they are Irish and they wont choke me, thaqs fine. I didn't realise you were a fancy scholar of crisp history, their affairs and societal/political impact. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's wikipedia for you - something gets mentioned, you look it up, and before you know it you're looking for citations. You'd be surprised at the weird collection of articles I've got on my watch list. The main problem is, whenever I look something up I end up copyediting the article because I don't like the grammar, and then I start looking for missing citations. You offered me a bag of taytos and within 10 minutes I was a crisp bore. I think I need to join wikipedians anonymous. Richerman (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say this as a friend, but thats one of several things you need to do. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cover is a detail...Modernist (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant Modernist, thanks. I know his name but not the work, very unusual figuration and colour. A new discovery. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did start an article on it, so you've no excuse. Riggr Mortis (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only just noticed. Wow; no wonder we are friends! Sincearly; you the man! THE MAN! Great work on the Goya also - I wanted to fiddle but the writing was as crisp and clear as usual. Ceoil ^sláinte 08:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of help. And thanks for the compliment. :-) I was a bit surprised the category didn't exist - he is one of the greats, after all. Incidentally, I know that particular portrait very well; it's in my hometown museum, and I've seen it dozens of times over the years. They even used it as the cover of the comprehensive catalog that was my intro to art history some years back. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the rule I've always followed is basically this: capitalize the painting as you would a book or film title in the same language. So for English, for instance: Portrait of a Young Girl, in the same way as Dead Man Walking or Gone with the Wind. Other languages, I know, are different, but they've always been a bit beyond me. As for categories, all I do is look for a similar category, and then create the new one based on the old one. As an example, I'm about to create one for Petrus Christus paintings. I know there's already one for Jan van Eyck, and van Eyck was a near-enough contemporary that he's likely to be categorized in the same fashion. So I open up Category:Jan van Eyck paintings, look at the categories, and use them to map Category:Petrus Christus paintings. Saves thinking for yourself. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Lord. I'm terrible at citation; honestly, sometimes I'll just do it the way I was taught and leave someone else to prettify it, as it were. I've never been any good at HTML, either - Wiki markup is about as far as I go. The only reason I ever learned anything about categories is because I like uniformity, and sometimes the only way to get that (i.e., in the countries-by-year categories) is to start creating 'em yourself before population. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image, nothing - how about in the body of the article? I've seen it reverted from time to time when I've moved an image to the left. Which I've done because it leaves a lot of whitespace on my office computer, which is formatted a little differently from my home PC. Not all resolutions are created equal, after all...

Anyhow, I must away in search of food shortly. It's getting to be my dinner time. I'll be back tonight. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

!!! Ellen Sharples! I'm a big fan of her daughter's, actually... --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen's? Or Rolinda's? I have a book with some of Rolinda's self-portraits, although I think the only one of a good size and in color is the one in the infobox. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid not, sorry. At a guess I'd say it's by one of those omnipresent "gifted amateurs" of the Regency period; it has that air. I'm afraid early nineteenth century English art isn't my strong suit - I'm familiar with Rolinda's work primarily because of its inclusion in a fine survey of female self-portraiture which I own and love. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what made me think it's by an amateur. It's not terrible, but it's rather awkward in a number of ways. Typical of the sort of thing an amateur would have produced in those days. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ceoil, I just have a quick question for you regarding this edit. Did you add this nom using the template, or did you copy-and-paste the code from a previous nom and fill in your information? And, if you did use the template, do you by any chance remember how you filled it out and would you be able to show me an example here (in <pre></pre> tags)?

I'm just asking because I'm trying to figure out if there's a bug in the template. I recently updated it so that all noms with images either have alt-text and rollover text specified (as in this nom) or the template automatically leaves a message below the image telling someone to add them (as in this nom). Yours is unusual since it has no alt-text or rollover text but didn't trigger the template to leave the extra messages, so I'm just trying to see if there's something wrong in the template code or if it's just the way you added the nom. Thanks, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you didn't mess up, I just wanted to check to see what was going on.

For the future, if you like, you can always just cut-and-paste and fill out this instead:

{{NewDYKnom
 | article = ???
 | hook = ???
 | author OR expander = Ceoil
 | status = new OR expanded
 | image = 
 | alttext =
 | rollover =
 | comment =
}}

(Personally I find that just as easy as copy-pasting the actual formatting, but if you don't like it you're not required to use it--I can imagine how the 'behind-the-scenes' formatting can be confusing.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 08:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't Sonny Knowles looking a bit sparse? I thought he was famous... • Ling.Nut 05:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. Knowles is from Dublin. I dont do Dublin. Ceoil ^sláinte 08:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very creepy. Let's be sporting and use a mythological version. JNW (talk) 01:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That is very wierd. Prob not something I want to look at, though I cant help looking at it. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed a post you put on another editor's page re: Goya, and followed up by reading the articles. Sorry I can't contribute, (did look at what was available via booksellers, and the titles were already cited), but nice to meet someone with similar tastes. If I do run across anything, will keep you in mind. Oh, and a link to another quirky piece from 19th c.; E. Fremiet... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EmmanuelFremietGorilleEnlevantUneFemme.jpg Oberonfitch (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of links does my auld friend request? WesleyDodds (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOFX phase at the moment. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unfortunate events in the front seats of the ring of Madrid, and the death of the Mayor of Torrejón, 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was brutal ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on this. I see you've even been working on Repin, too. Cheers to you and all your furry disease-laden woodland friends, JNW (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, could I get your opinion on this? I think it's very synth-y, but I could be wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Synth is the least of the probs. I'm not seeing many of the statements backed up by RS. Unless you consider the talk it's self to be such a source. Now that would be a world of hell, considering the crap MF has tolerated there. I'm not exactly innocent, but thats some thorny branch! Ceoil ^sláinte 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 11, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article José Lázaro Galdiano, 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 06:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Danaë with Nursemaid at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of an acquired taste for most people: [4]. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I likes! I think you are nerdy enough (sorry man) to get this[5] Ceoil ^sláinte 15:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see Moraes has landed. I'd love to see Belcher or a slab of beef [6] Sadly the link you left seems malfunctional [7] ahh well Mick gold (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Farson's Soho: "Henrietta happened to go to an afternoon club she did not know, where she was greeted with shouts of gleeful recognition from some sailors she had never met before. Explaining their hilarity, they brandished the prints which Deakin had just sold them for ten shillings each." I like your new girlfriend [8] Mick gold (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to contribute if I can find anything worth contributing. Bacon's paintings of Belcher always reminded me of a sphynx. Mick gold (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Outriggr ...attractive
  Outriggr ...attractive
• 
  Johnbod ...attractive
• 
  SandyGeorgia (in 1999) ....attractive
• 
  Moni3 ...attractive; has edge of danger (& a stick)
• 
  WesleyDodds....attractive (but not not exactly a trophy)
• 
  JayHenry .... not attractive
• 
  Chillum ....not attractive
• 
  Awadewit holding up standards at FAC
• Giano...though high maintenance
  Giano...though high maintenance
• 
  Kafka Liz ...attractive
• 
  JNW ...attractive, but a wee bit poncey here
• 
  Modernist
• 
  Tyrenius
• Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy)
  Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy)
• 
  Yomangani?
• Tony1
  Tony1
• 
  From the other side
• 
  Malleus Fatuorum
• 
  iridescent
• 
  Ealdgyth
• 
  Casliber
• TFMWNCB
  TFMWNCB
• Ceoil
  Ceoil
• 
  Ceoil's sister (aka JayHenry's girlfriend)
• 
  Ceoil's ex girlfriend
• 
  Fairusebot
• 
  Socks trying to act casual
• 
  RFA
• 
  Guess
• 
  Riggr Mortis

I have NO tattoos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tattoos not shown. And your likely younger. Anyway, its JH i'm out to get, so don't worry. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Word has it Outriggr is quite handsome-- could be his ego speaking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen pics, and though not my cup of tea (he's a bloke), I can say that he would be foxy to some. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only! That's just a polite way of saying I look like Fotherington-Thomas [9]. Giano's guide on writing FAs in fact has an authentic portrait of SG, btw. I think his one catches him well though. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's me ... shy Southern Belle :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did that go, btw? Can't find it. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, for years you have left us to believe you look like [10]. Say it anit so! Ceoil ^sláinte 19:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you left a space for yourself; I'm going to wait for JH or the Riggs to fill it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With that pic of Ceoil up, I may need to cool off before reading FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not my best angle, and the lighting is poor, and I was tired that day, but grand; can live with that. I sorry if I caused you need to cool down, I cant help that. Ceoil ^sláinte 19:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That captures my habitual sulky look quite well I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was more the Manc thing. But who is you Brix Smith? Hopefully not Ottava! Ceoil ^sláinte 19:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love the picture of me. Truth is sadly more bookish. JNW (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JNW, you failed to take the SRCDF seriously enough.[11] Ceoil ^sláinte 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sandy's picture....do we give out phone numbers? JNW (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are support groups on the internet, but for her, no docs. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can get in line, JNW, but Ceoil and Outriggr are tied for No. 1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. Silly of me to think that I could rely solely on style [12]. JNW (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas for Modernist? I racking by brains....Ceoil ^sláinte 20:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Patience. I'll have something soon. JNW (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I look like that only on fullmoon nights...and the Fourth of July. But where is User:Kafka Liz?..Modernist (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what they all say. Re Liz; was trying to find qp10qp's article on portraits of Eliz1. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image chosen for its intensity, Modernist. That's an editor one would do well to respect. As opposed to Ceoil, who despite his intellectual gifts manages to glide by on looks roguish charm. JNW (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those guys from Cork get all the girls I hear. Elizabeth I by Hans Eworth might do Liz justice...Modernist (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:) Justice? In my wikipedia? ;) Kafka Liz (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without wanting to spoil your dreams, JNW, thats not me. I'm that delightful fiest over there to your right (absent teeth, bad back and carivan not pictured). Ceoil ^sláinte 23:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be. I do romanticize things Irish. As for dreams..[13]. JNW (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, I've been trying to link that Klimt to a few Titian's over the last week, but without sucess. Her arched knee is a give away to Titian, but I have no sources, as of yet. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta admit I have wondered what User:SlimVirgin, User:Karanacs and User:Awadewit look like nowadays too...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knock your self out...Add! I'm thinking Ottava, and my mind explodes. Ceoil ^sláinte 23:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, darling, you're not in the game until you've added Moni3 to the list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can others vote? Here's Moni then:

• Ling.Nut 09:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... read the article. Innocent woman killed by a mob, etc. • Ling.Nut 10:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaah! Whoopi Goldberg. I dunno. I kind of like this one because it says "If I have to wear this dress, I'm going to look like I'm about to beat your ass with this stick." I approve of that sentiment. Of course, for the longest time, this was on my talk page, but the violence in that image is breathtaking. Gentileschi was one angry woman. Of course, this hot mama could also serve me as a face. Stoic, classy, green, scaled. What about those descriptions does not also detail my best features? Moni3 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony is my favorite: I just crack up every time I see it. Someone should ping him over here! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm taken by Moni3. I always knew she was not to be messed with, but such nonchalants (if she does say so herself!) Ceoil ^sláinte 22:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it is a good thing there aren't too many pictures of me on the internet, eh? :) Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, Ceoil... when are you going to put up Ottava? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, could you please do something about my dumpy brown coat? That is so last year ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you didn't put up a pic of Robert Smith for me. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to stick the knife a bit further in than that, Dodds. Ceoil ^sláinte 09:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moni looks rather remarkably like my college roommate here... Kafka Liz (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that the picture Ceoil selected for me looks a good deal like one of my nearest professional rivals. When I saw the picture I nearly spit out my evening glass of Coldcock[14] thinking it was him. --JayHenry (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why am I a chemical? I have no straight lines IRL.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a chemical renowned for straightness. Think yourself lucky, I'm either Goya's maid or an amorphous blob. Yomangani^talk 02:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this new picture. And clearly Casliber should be a banksia. Riggr Mortis (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, didn't quite understand this [15]. Why a reference to psychologism in the middle of the Plato section? From the other side (talk) 21:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - fixed now. Ceoil ^sláinte 22:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 14, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Danaë with Nursemaid, 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 00:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ceoil ^sláinte 00:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what a fact. That "aid" is a real hag. Yomangani^talk 01:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sue if you are getting at my spelling, or the nurse's fading, eh, beauty. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aid as in helper. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aide in that case, though I thought it was a typo for "maid". They must be choosing kwailtie over cuantite if your spelling is making it through to DYK hooks. Arf. Yomangani^talk 01:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough...! Spelling and me will never reconcile. Ceoil ^sláinte 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Stop me if I'm babbling, but heck, don't the photos in Poulnabrone dolmen look like two different sites? The top photo seems to have its capstone supported by three portal stones, although the article text clearly says it is supported by two. The middle one could very well be a different angle on the middle photo, but the bottom one looks different to me... • Ling.Nut 07:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the text that seems to be wrong - see Notre Dame "in depth" link. Plus one stone, sorry orthostat, is cracked & they added one & replaced one - I think. All very complicated. Why not start again & do it properly in concrete I say. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a plan. Perhaps we could get a corporate sponsor to help foot the bill... How do you think the dolmen would look sporting a couple golden arches  ? • Ling.Nut 02:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, though odder things have happened. Not looked Ling.Nut, but will. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An ALT1 hook is on the template talk page. Is it better? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added ALT2. Come on! Happy holidays to you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find something about Gorecki's Third premiere? OboeCrack (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your input is humbly requested here. Thanks • Ling.Nut 05:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Portrait of a Woman (Rogier van der Weyden), 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, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How was St. Paddy's Day? Did you party down, or did you stay home and alphabetize your record collection? Me, I didn't do much. By the way, this recent addition is making me tear my hair out trying to sort it out. A bunch of editors wanted a members list, so now we're got a excessive amount of refs (occasionally unformatted, often redundant, all missing important citation information) that aren't all that helpful and are a nightmare to look at in script form in the edit screen. Oy. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O thats a drag with SP; perhalps just spin it out? Not a big fan of Paddy's day, esp. when its a wednesday and up early next morning. Otherwise; sound is broken on my comput for last week, now that really sucks, editing in silence. Ceoil ^sláinte 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I signed on here too - [16]...Modernist (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for the thought. They will be gone fast, I'm looking to see who else is online at the moment. Ceoil ^sláinte 20:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ceoil. I wonder if you would review the new hook for Room & Board at Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_March_11. I realize that Materialscientist had comments, but don't think that matters except that he's an important DYK person. It's just sitting there being ignored and soon enough will scroll away into oblivion. Sorry to trouble you with this. Unfortunately you offered your services on the first hook. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you've forced my hand. Recent picture of me, taken at an undisclosed location: [17]. Call me enigmatic, and more than a little world-weary. JNW (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try and fool somebody who appeared in a more recent rain shower. I know you, and you are a handsome guy, but you did offer the poncy pic your own damn self. Live with it - no mercy here. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Memories of playground rhubarbs come flooding back. Mercy neither asked for nor expected. One man's poncy is another's erudition. JNW (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, dear, if the complaints department is open, I am unhappy with the implications the Riggrs have made about me and my tattoos. You see how men are? You call them handsome and it goes straight to head ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which Riggr was it? I will investigate but I need to know who and when (also why, how, and where). (Investigations are billed at $50/pageload.) Riggr Mortis (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't play sweet and innocent on me, Mr. Mortis; I know where to find YouTube. Errrr ... once Moni points me to it, that is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I've been hanging around with the wrong sort; bloody content people; dashing, handsome, inventive, and clever as they are, I am being led down a dark path. Far more fun reverting "Shawn is teh gay" ips, and swinging with deleters and blockers. Everybody who posted here before as friend; screw you - JNW, you are particularly in diffuculty. Ceoil (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Vicious? I've never even listened to anything by the Sex Pistols. Nor am I inclined to wikisuicide (for now), as I have come again to judge the quick, the dead and the non-notable. I am huffily offended. Shall I choose to hereby subpoena you to appear before the arbitration committee on charges of calumnious statements? Oh no, sir; being from the Commonwealth of Kentucky I am obliged to seek satisfaction! Meet me with your second behind the village pump at high noon tomorrow, sirrah! Lithoderm 02:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, much as I am fond of you, you can swing and go join jnw on my list of former grand people who are now just former people. How are things other wise? Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty OK. I'm just a tad crazy, that's all. Just finished copyediting Portrait of a Young Woman, c 1435, but now I have to finish a project for tomorrow. You'll see me around on Goya though, I won't abandon that. We've got a promising new editor on William Blake, too; you might check that out. Lithoderm 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching the Blake page, and did notice that. Ta for the 1435 c/e, much appreciated. The Goya might be a few weeks wait though, waiting on books; but delighted that we might collab. Ceoil (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funerary art is nommed. Be there or be oblong. • Ling.Nut