User talk:PRiis
John Day on FAC
[edit]Peter, I'm really sorry I idiotically omitted taking a good look at the John Day references until it was actually on FAC. I have no excuse, I just kind of took 'em for granted--duh! [smacks head]. I don't have access to the DNB—hopefully, the 1973 entry on Day that you refer to was properly updated then—the entry on Vanbrugh pretended to be, but the facts in it looked flat-out Victorian (=deteriorated hearsay) to me—Leslie Stephen or Sidney Lee. Not that I know if the 1975 publication I mention on FAC is any good. (It actually is available in the library here, but no doubt in Chicago, too?) Anyway, I expect you'll be able to straighten me out when you next look in. Sorry.--Bishonen | Talk 22:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Nothing to be sorry about! I didn't take anything you said as being a problem at all. You're right on the money about the DNB--definitely ancient stuff--the '73 edition is essentially a reprint edition (they may have corrected some typos but I don't think there was any substantive revision). Maybe I should somehow indicate that in the citation? I relied much more on the up-to-date Evenden bio than the DNB anyway.PRiis 01:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Or, if there are any actual discrepancies between your account and DNB, do like I did with Vanbrugh, point out up front in the article itself that you'r right and they're wrong? See, what I don't like is the thought that people would look at your article, look at the DNB entry, and conclude that Wikipedia is being unreliable. Academics know to question the classic encyclopedias, but most readers don't. Anyway, cool, I wrote a reply on FAC. How about Giano not seeing the picture, though? Pity David Remahl is out of here, he took charge very masterfully when people with some browsers and systems complained on FAC that they couldn't see some .png's of mine. Still, nobody else has been heard from so far. I hesitate to get into the technicalities with Giano... last time I tried, he asked if Mozilla was a cheese, it's that wonderful Italian focus on fine dining and wining, you know. Bishonen | Talk 08:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- P. S. I have now tried changing your "frame" wikicode to "thumb". It's mostly frames that cause problems when there's something iffy about an image, because thumbing will force the wikimedia software to recode it, which often fixes the problem. Of course it's not a proper solution, and it re-introduces the stupid space-wasting click box—I just thought I'd try it for Giano to take a look at. What application did you crop it in? David told me that when I'd messed with an image, I ought to save it using the "Save for web" option (elderly Adobe Photoshop), and I've never had any trouble since. (That I know of! Maybe people outside of FAC are just too polite to say, if they can't see an image.) Bishonen | Talk 09:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Or, if there are any actual discrepancies between your account and DNB, do like I did with Vanbrugh, point out up front in the article itself that you'r right and they're wrong? See, what I don't like is the thought that people would look at your article, look at the DNB entry, and conclude that Wikipedia is being unreliable. Academics know to question the classic encyclopedias, but most readers don't. Anyway, cool, I wrote a reply on FAC. How about Giano not seeing the picture, though? Pity David Remahl is out of here, he took charge very masterfully when people with some browsers and systems complained on FAC that they couldn't see some .png's of mine. Still, nobody else has been heard from so far. I hesitate to get into the technicalities with Giano... last time I tried, he asked if Mozilla was a cheese, it's that wonderful Italian focus on fine dining and wining, you know. Bishonen | Talk 08:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Really, the only substantive difference (at least that's reflected in the article) was that the DNB article still asserts that he left England during the reign of Mary. The article does mention that Evenden has disproven this, so I think that's covered. The picture problem troubles me. I think I used my own ancient (coal-burning) version of Photoshop to crop it. It doesn't even have a "save for the web" option. I'll ask if anyone else is having a problem. Thanks for straigtening that out, and thanks for all the help with this whole process. I'm starting to remember why I didn't jump right back into it last time! -Pete PRiis 22:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- It's odd I can see the image no problem in the article itself, but it's missing at 'Image:JohnDayPrinter.jpg' This is beyond my field of expertise! Giano 07:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Pete, this is the blind leading the blind, but does your ancestral Photoshop allow saving in .png (first choice) or .gif format? If so, you might try producing one of those and upload again so as to overwrite the .jpg. Failing that, if you tell me the url for the original, or upload it just as it is for me to collect, I'll crop it and do the dead chicken thing ("Save for web") and see if that helps. Bishonen | Talk 09:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hi just in cas you have not fixed it I have reuploaded it, but it need to be retagged. If you've sorted it already put a speedy vfd on it . Regards Giano 09:30, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for straightening it out. Yes, I just made the image in the article a little bit wider. Now I'll do whatever it is I have to do to get the old one deleted. Thanks again. PRiis 17:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Look forward to seeing it on the front page. Giano 18:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
John Day FA
[edit]Congratulations! Bishonen | Talk 14:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, that's great. Thanks again for all the help and advice. I hope I didn't make too much of an ass of myself. Time for another long, long FA break. PRiis 18:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Return of the Untagged Image project
[edit]You were kind enough to contribute to the Wikipedia:Untagged images project; I beg to draw your attention to part 2 of the project - there are about 12,000 more images in need of tagging. Any assistance you could provide would be most welcome. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)
Not around much any more
[edit]Are you gone, Pete? :-( With a bit of luck, you may have noticed your "Passing of the antique" collage on the Main page at this moment, though. A great admin revert war is going on as regards having the nihilartikel on the Main page today, but right now, there it is, and a lovely image, too. :-) --Bishonen|Talk 10:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Congratulations! That's great! I got busy just when the first kerfuffle over the TPH article was starting to brew, so I kind of lost track the whole thing. I've only had time to do a tiny bit of editing, but I've been able to check in now and then. I'm so glad it made FA for April 1! PRiis 16:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, it never made FA. Pete, do take a look at the vote on the FAC talk page, if you're not already au courant with it. The Great April Hoax War of 2005. What an uproar, you should have been there. And an uproar about what? That's the Internet for you, a thing like that getting taken so seriously (and unfortunately generating lots of bad feeling). And if you're up for a bit of gossip, check out User talk:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder, also, for a hint at my, well, misunderstanding with Jimbo Wales about it. (Which we have just this moment cleared up on IRC.) I'm so glad you dropped by in time to catch your inspired work on the Main page. Hope to see you back producing those FA's soon! --Bishonen|Talk 17:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pointer (I guess). Kind of like getting a tour of the sausage factory. I have to force myself not to read these sorts of discussions--on one hand it's fascinating (in an unhealthy way), but on the other, it's easy to get jaundiced. I guess I should take comfort in the fact that it ended up the way it did, though. Some of those other proposals were kind of--you know. ("Click here for our April Fool's Page"? Oy!) PRiis 02:44, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Pete, so glad to see you've taken leave of your senses at last! --Bishonen | talk 22:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- It had to happen sooner or later! At least it was in the service of a worthy cause. PRiis 02:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed you have previously been involved in editing this article, and it is currently being worked on to try to raise it to FA standard. If you are interested in helping improve this article once more, see here. Harro5 07:13, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Luvverly!
[edit]Pete, it's so luvverly to see you back and in full swing! I'm very sorry it's taking me so long to haul ass over to Peer Review. It's not that I haven't seen you—I do keep watch—but it's been a bit of a madhouse over here. (And whose fault is that? Who asked me to poke my nose in everywhere?) But I'm definitely coming for Elias Ashmole, no way are you gonna fend me off! Bishonen | talk 11:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you! But I would never try to fend you off. PRiis 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Winstanley
[edit]Thanks for the invite, although it stripped me miserably of pretension: it turns out I can cheat but I can't win. To give myself an unfair head start, I uploaded a nice high-res version here—gotta use that EEBO access while I've got it, it's only temporary—and I STILL don't recognize anybody. :-( This is where the lack of shared background jumps up and bites the second-language speaker on the ass. I never saw a schoolbook that had any of these guys in it. Never mind, there are advantages to being a Martian, too: imagine coming across that Shakespeare or whatever his name was at age 20 and going "Hey, what's THIS?" I'll take that experience any day over being spoonfed Lamb's Tales from Shakespeare at an uncomprehending age. But thanks for embarrassing me! ;-) Bishonen | talk 12:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, really it's just an excuse to goof around. But the scan! Very interesting story with that--this is the 1684 edition, and the one on my site is the 1660 ed. Apparently, the 1660 edition came out just months before the restoration, and in it he prasied Cromwell to the skies, to the point of absurdity. When the second edition came out, all the praise was changed to abuse. I notice that on your beautiful scan, Cromwell's intiaials are taken off his portrait (first head below "1687" in the title). Would it be OK to upload your beautiful version too? -Pete PRiis 15:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Infobox Biography
[edit]Template:Infobox Biography has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Infobox Biography. Thank you. DreamGuy 07:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Nowell
[edit]Good stuff - thanks for sorting that out!
— Haeleth Talk 12:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
If you should happen to look in on us, Pete, would you consider adding some inline cites to John Dee? The wiki has gone inline cite crazy, and it's being threatened with demotion from FAC. :-( Please check out Wikipedia:Featured article review/John Dee. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 21:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC).
Chicago meetup
[edit]Would you be interested in a Chicago meetup? Click here for information on the meetup. Thank you. Laleenatalk to me contributions to Wikipedia 17:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
FAR
[edit]John Day (printer) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Biruitorul (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Elias Ashmole has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)