User talk:Ceoil/Archive 12

Hooky's bass sounds huge. It's interesting to see Bernard Sumner try to sing like, well, a singer in that video. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should clean this up, you silly auld dog. I know you want to. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not too hot on the newest Bloc Party album. I really liked Silent Alarm. The latest album has its moments, but they took an odd turn there. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burial and Tindersticks made the shortlist tonight. Look it up and check it out. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember: when you get the newsletter in the next few days, take note of the recommended album for the month. Give it a spin, then compile a list of related YouTube links for sharing and discussion. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check yer inbox. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good for now. No rush. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I just opened a package from the mail and the new Bauhaus album was inside. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You look at Mojo this month? There's a countdown of the top 50 "indie" records, and "This Charming Man" is at number one, with a four page article dedicated to it. Johnny Marr even mentions what key it's in. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to pick up the guitar today and master this one. Flicker flicker flicker.WesleyDodds (talk) 10:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy s--t, this is awesome. This too. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You hear of the two-disc Joy Division best-of coming out that includes the Peel Sessions? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you buy the Mojo article or am I going to have to? (I really don't want to spend ten dollars on an import mag) WesleyDodds (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when this was cool? Ignoring all the shit that's happened since then, this is a great performance. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was DJing at a dance party last where I decided to play mostly 80s R&B dance-pop from my childhood (with some New Order and OMD thrown in for good measure). Whenever a particular onne of my workmates leaned over to see what amazing tune I was playing, it was always a Michael Jackson song from the first two albums (well, the ones that count). WesleyDodds (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few moments. Until then watch this. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not too knowledgable about electro, but I do have this: [1], [2], [3], [4] WesleyDodds (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have some rock to balance that all out. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should upload a new version of the "This Charming Man" soundclip. You can barely hear anything and it needs to be shorter anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly the only material I've been able to get my hands on is the subpar stuff. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems relevant. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant because the song is fucking great. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about the Top of the Pops performance. While you're at it, make the TOTP performance a subsection of the reception section, since bands get on the show for charting. Oddly enough I'm listening to Pearl Jam right now, which is quite the opposite of this song. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend me some British electronic music. I've got the new Autechre album and I need something to go with it. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should cite this. Problem is, I haven't quite figured out how to format references for television documentaries. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be low on links this weekend. I've been listening to a lot of Pearl Jam this week, so unless you want videos of them (which I'm betting you don't) you're out of luck from my end this go-round. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of taking a stab at Chronic Town soon. Well, I technically have already started, but I mean a more intensive stab at it. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent my weekend watching the new cable miniseries on John Adams. That's about it. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: happy St. Paddy's Day WesleyDodds (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still a great performance, nonetheless. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needed: one soundclip from Chronic Town. "Gardening at Night" or "Wolves, Lower". Preferrably the latter, as Michael Stipe isn't singing in a oddly high pitch in that one. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently collaborating on Blur (band). Cited up to 1995. Given you're not a fan of the band, it might amuse you that with what I've been able to source so far the band comes off as rather pathetic at times. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors are better than Interpol. Discuss. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the second paragraph of the lead in "This Charming Man" quite works. Mind if I take a stab at writing something else? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what just got promoted to FA [5] WesleyDodds (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not convince your cousin to hold the wedding at the MBV show? WesleyDodds (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know the band has complained that the video was not made with their permission, but the "How Soon Is Now?" video is pretty damn good. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goth! WesleyDodds (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ceoil, I saw you in the edit history of Lisa Gerrard. Are you interested in keeping an eye on this? The IP is blocked for a week (see my talk). And what's up with Wesley's FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can do re Lisa. Was travelling for last few weeks so haven't looked too closely at Wesley's FAC for a while, though I saw it was still open. Might have to call in Outriggr for this as it seems to be ce issues only. Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceoil. How are you? I am fine. Have you been reading?

Arms and canvass cross'd,
Friedrich has his back to thee.
Free him from the frost,
Landscapes breath infinity.
–Outriggr § 04:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you've broken my heart, & put another notch in my headboard of disappointments. Collaboration—hopes—dashed—again? I was serious, but do it only for the love of romantic, melancholic landscapes [this guy was more a precursor of modern painting than you may know, bringing a new style of allegory], and not because I will leave again if you don't (LOL :). –Outriggr § 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Outriggr § 04:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dia dhuit, a chara. R U Still in 2 It? Hope so. Have you any interest in hip hop at all? It's an area I've been editing in a little; the wikiproject for it seems moribund and was from what I can tell somewhat dysfunctional in any case. I seek a collaborator or at least a sounding board. Sometimes I just need help with judgment or purely editorial decisions. Since I was recently butchering one of your FAs, I thought of you. Any chance I could come to you for help with stuff? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a no, then. :P 86.44.18.185 (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been long awaited, but here's a formal thanks for your help on the Preludes (Chopin) article, not to mention your quick and honored feedback. (This message would have been longer if I possessed a knowledge of synonyms for "thanks" and "very good.")

The Apple Pie Award Ceoil, may this pie be as sweet and tartly as your edits (forgive the pun) on Preludes (Chopin), and although it is obvious that this pie is not edible (nor is it a barnstar), at least it looks delicious from your computer screen. And many happy returns and a long Wiki-life. Cheers! --~~MusicalConnoisseur~~ Got Classical? 05:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I'd be delighted to look at both articles, though I expect you and Outrigger will have things well taken care of. Still, it is nice to hear from you, if only to jar me out of my mindless anti-vandalism crusades. Cheers! JNW (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually flattered, and laughing, to be characterized as good on the small stuff, and to be referred to as the serious art guy. And here I've always thought of myself, whether wielding brush or pen, as an artful vendor of prose. Both you and Rigger do great work. More later, JNW (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Friedrich, I have done some editing and moving things about, explained at the talk page there. See what you think. A lot of the big guns have been there: in addition to you and O.R. there are contributions by Modernist and Johnbod, kind of an art editors all-star team. JNW (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add to Friedrich soon, maybe even later today. Thanks for asking again. When we put the team together, second base would suit me well. Hell, I'd be happy to platoon there with someone who does good research and can turn the double play. Cheers, JNW (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC

Thanks for the heads-up on Venus. I will have a look. JNW (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JNW, please do contribute to CDF. The other night I was just surprised to see the art all-star team sweep through the article when our little collaboration had barely started—but I didn't realize Ceoil had sent out messages. I then wondered if collaboration would be easier in a "sandbox", but I wouldn't know, because I've never done that before. And, you are good at the small, big, and medium stuff! See you at CDF. I am excited to see this come together. The hard part will be CDF's symbolism. –Outriggr § 00:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ceoil. Perhaps you can help with A Tale of a Tub, after all. Per Awadewit on the FAR, the Historical background section could use a couple of covering notes. That would take care of one unreffed section, at least. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I don't know if Geogre has much to do with the page at the moment. You might talk to Awadewit, however, who was good enough to go through it all. Marskell (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya. I guess I'm slow to turn to Geogre. Marskell (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and given how often I edit drunk (like now, for example), I don't mind if you copyedit your own messages to me repeatedly. Or if you just leave the typos. The message generally comes across. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fall back on the idea that all of it (including misspelling) is my Dad's fault, the fookin' bastard. It's much easier than calling myself a sinner. Marskell (talk) 18:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have it in mind, the article looks pretty good as is, I'll add what I can during the next few days..Modernist (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honoured! Do you mean influences out, as it were? Johnbod (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think some more general appreciation could be added - maybe to a renamed "description" section. I'd leave the nudes section where it is, or the article will be mostly "background". I'll work on the French clothes - some into a note maybe. I have another related point. I think we're nearly there,& it hasn't been up long at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just "the work" or "composition" or something, or leave it. Or if it gets expanded a lot, maybe two sections. Friedrich is a bit out of my period, so I'll just tag along. Johnbod (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalí has an early work of Venus and Cupids that is probably influenced by this one. I seem to recall it has her back to the viewer and it might even have a cupid fettered with ribbons. I'll have a dig around later, but if you already know I'm misremembering you can save me the trouble. Yomangani^talk 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6]. Not quite as I remembered but close enough (palette is fairly close too). Dalí was a Velázquez fan so little doubt that there is at least some influence there. Perhaps someone will have a book - the picture is a little early and not well known enough to get much coverage. You can shoehorn the Aphrodite in if you use the description of the style I took from the Spanish Wikipedia as it refers to classical sculpture which provides the perfect lead in. Lucas Cranach the Elder also has a Venus: skinny, odd looking thing she is, but she did get removed from the Tube for being too overtly sexual.

Now...what's this removing redlinks malarkey? Yomangani^talk 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia, you luddite. Have a link to my half-finished never-to-be-completed essay. I shall have to oppose on the grounds of WP:BITE now (hey, its the in-thing). Yomangani^talk 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Below Outriggr? Now that is asking for trouble. Yomangani^talk 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<goes to search for his name. This is why we have conversations take place on one talk page. New policy, please.> –Outriggr § 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cranach did dozens of Venuses, all nude, & many with cupids. But mostly standing in a landscape. But I'm not sure how familiar V would have been with them; there are none in the Prado. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of the tradition of depictions of Venus rather than a direct influence. None of that coy turning away or Lady Godiva hair on Cranach's Venus(es). Yomangani^talk 18:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You just had to say Lady Godiva. Rock out to it, Ceoil! WesleyDodds (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in pics of Richardson's handiwork? I have two (both B&W): one a fairly sharp detail and one a more fuzzy view of the whole picture. They are from the same source pic and it may be PD (the books don't give any photo credits for them), but a FU rationale would probably be safer. Yomangani^talk 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the detail one in - the other one will look just like a black and white version of the painting unless you view it at full resolution, and the detail pic does just about cover all the damage. Yomangani^talk 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is too bad. I might be tempted to move "Inspiration" to its own section after the description - otherwise we've been discussing the picture for ages before we get the details pointed out, and it would then run nicely into "Nudes in 17-century Spain" and then onto "Influence" when you've done that section. Also the ending is a little downbeat. I don't think the vandalism can go anywhere except where it is, but you could move the successful repair to the last sentence and the details from The Times up with the other info on the slashes. That way we end on a "Hooray it was saved!" Yomangani^talk 15:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting a bit crowded with images, isn't it? Always the problem with visual arts articles (and I always seem to notice it first as apparently my screen is huge and at very high resolution and with very small text). You are probably going to want to put more in when you get to the influence section too. You could go for a gallery approach (always a popular choice at FAC), or we could do something like I did for Giano at Queluz National Palace - a sort of mini gallery to underline each section. Yomangani^talk 15:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lead needs rewriting now. There are bits that aren't mentioned in the main text and it doesn't provide a summary anymore. Yomangani^talk 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try. Have a nice w/e. Btw, I'm not too sure about the influence bit - that Ingres in 1808 even knew of the V Venus would need demonstrating - I think he was following I forget which famous classical sculpture, probably a Venus too. The ancients ruled "bums in art" well into the C19th. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prater implies an awarness by heading his chapter with the Ingres. But that's not the same as a statement, so sadly the img should be cut. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Dali this article from the foundation doesn't mention a rokeby link; the one Yomangani links above seems more obviously Ingres-related, so I think I'll leave him out until we come up with a closer parallel. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem - it is too minor to rate a mention most of the time, but the article you link to does conclude with "The only model that Dalí acknowledges himself to have had is Velázquez", so I'd think the influence is more likely to be (or at least acknowledged to be) Velázquez. Of course if we can't find anybody saying that apart from me, it's fairly useless. Yomangani^talk 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know if present company thinks this was an influence. <:/> –Outriggr § 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lotto's already mentioned in the article. You'll have to do better than that. Yomangani^talk 11:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, the edit summaries here have been giving me fits :-) Ceoil, I don't know anything about Lisa Gerrard, but Glitter has been busy again, and I see she's been editing there as well. In case you want to keep an eye, I've started a summary at User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter; wasted a good half hour of my time tonight. She seems to show up first at Lisa Gerrard, before she comes to disrupt FAC. BInguyen has blocked, but she keeps coming back with the same. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy. I have added all the above articles to my watch list, and will keep an eye out. Oh and thanks for closing the Venus PR, I'd actually forgotten about. Sings of age are everywhere for me these days. Ceoil (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I took a quick look and it looks good. I'll have a bit of a fiddle around with it over the weekend. Too tired to be serious at this time on a Friday night, this side of the planet! All the best!

Amandajm (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coil00 huh? Always one step ahead of Interpol, aren't ya. I heard from my overseas sources that you're away for a few days. Something about Polish sausage. You've left yourself in a vulnerable state, and in various corners the troops are rallying, soon to surround your user pages and your precious articles. They will be liberated, all of them. Infoboxes will be strategically positioned, as will various factoids with footnotes placed afterward that are nevertheless utterly false. All "FAR saves" will be rolled back to a "troll-oppose" state. It is also a new league of "en-1" copyeditors will be excitable for polishing your articlage. Enjoy your time off, but realize you'll have lost a year of wiki-life. That's the price of the finer meats. –Outriggr § 08:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that your user page has been de-trolled, are we all square now? (You wouldn't believe the weekend I've had.) –Outriggr § 02:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two FACs at the same time. Dude, you are on fire! And you ridicule my infallible guide. Shame on you!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have made a proposal that no peer review request be archived without some response. To aid in this, there is a new list of PR requests at least one week old that have had no repsonses beyond a semi-automated peer review. This list is at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog.

There are just over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, so I figure if each of these volunteers reviewed just one or two PR requests without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog (as there have been 2 or 3 such unanswered requests a day on average).

If you would be able to help out with a review or two a month from the "no responses" backlog list that would be great (and much appreciated). Please discuss questions, comments, or ideas at the PR talk page and thanks in advance for your help, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking SuggestiveBot to tell you what you're interested in. I have searched my databanks and yours to produce a list of pages that you're sure to enjoy.

First, your name is Ceoil. User:Ceoil and User talk:Ceoil are currently in stub status, and could use your help. I will also suggest Unpronouncable.

Second, your musical tastes suggest the following articles will suit you:

• Dixie Chicks
• GG Allin
• Kingston Trio
• GWAR

Third, you've edited a variety of articles about art and medical conditions. You can find out more about your diagnoses and improve these articles at the same time:

• Painter's colic
• Carbohydrate addiction

Fourth, for your dandy, handy, or randy moods, I suggest the following:

• Belt and suspenders
• Utility belt
• Chastity belt (or user talk:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back)

Thank you for using SuggestiveBot. SuggestiveBot 01:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On featured article status for the Rokeby! There were many valuable contributions from the usual suspects, who united at the sound of your clarion call. Cheers, JNW (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well put! I was really pleased with the end result. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its very satisfying to work as apart of a team like this. More please. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearty three cheers. Modernist (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for that one, and congratulations for "This Charming Man" which was promoted a few hours ago. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on a great success with the Rokeby Venus, Ceoil. Your call to me came just as I was going out of action for a short time (as the sign at my talkpage said). Please don't hesitate to be in touch if I can assist in future. At the time of proposing an article for FAC is best, perhaps.

Best wishes.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this category really just a test? If so, please remove it, as you shouldn't being using the main Wikipedia for experimentation. If not, perhaps you could provide it with some parent categories ... Stepheng3 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are one of the best around in art-related articles, I wanted to speak to you about this biography. I remember the article, since the first time User:Celithemis, an excellent editor as you may know, submitted it for PR in WP:Biography. I was impressed from the first moment; I liked it a lot, and since then I was watching to see when Celithemis would submit it to FAC. Nevertheless, he/she chose to go first for GAC (which was useless IMO), and now the article is GA. I was still expecting to see its nomination! But, after all these months, that I checked it again, now that I am more active again, I see it is still GA and Celithemis is unfortunately inactive for 8 months.

I feel uncomfortable to nominate articles I have not worked on (after all I still remember the unfortunate experience of El Greco's first FAC), and I would not like to become Yomangan's guide best follower! After all I now intend to focus on two other articles: Byzantine economy and International aid to Palestinians. On the other side, I feel it is a shame such a great (and comprehensive as far as I can judge - read it, if you have time, to see if you agree!) article not to have the star it deserves. Anyway, I just don't know what we should do with this article, and I wanted to share my thoughts with you!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been neglectful of my friends! Yeah. Mona Lisa! I want to have a bit of a fiddle with Piero's little masterpiece the Flagelllatiion as well. Amandajm (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you listed yourself on the volunteers list as willing to review "anything at all to do with music since 1976", I thought you might like to take a look at the Gilberto Gil peer review. Thanks, Kakofonous (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Ceoil! And just in time, as well—Recently I nominated George Bernard Shaw for upgrading to Good Article status. What you've done will make its chances better. Wugo (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking whether WP:IE should have a barnstar for members and ordinary users who contribute a lot to it. i have a design for the barnstar if it is created on my computer so all I ask is should I create this barnstar? Yours sincerely --Markreidyhp 12:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re your note to me. Please see Talk:Éire. I've explained all my changess - it took quite a while just to do so. I hope you'll agree that the article desperately needed an overhaul. You'll notice most deletions concerned inaccuracies; repetition or where it went off topic. Sometimes the text has just been moved around to be in a more logical order. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad, we agreed on the Éire article. You might want to check out this as it might interest you. Redking7 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox was updated. So why is it no longer appreciated with this article? Jeanenawhitney (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2008

Ceoil, do you have time to review Ima Hogg at FAC? Many of the active FAC reviewers worked on it, hence can't review, so it needs more independent eyes. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could he resist, what with his Bacon fetish? :) –Outriggr § 04:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clever ... right up there with The Fat Man's porcine puns ... only The Fat Man fell in love with Ima's corset and went soft on us. He took one look at Ima and all his punnability went out the window !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He can't resist the high-class gals! It's written all over him (with a lot of ink). –Outriggr § 04:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What man couldn't? If I was 75 years younger, filthy rich, and part of that artistrocy; there would defineatly be stirrings. Leave the Fat Man alone, he's just a human, afterall. What goes on in his groin is his own business. WP:AGF? Ceoil (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started drafting a user conduct RfC that you might be interested in here. There's a lot of evidence to sift through and present, so I think it will take awhile to get it put together. If you'd like to participate, please feel free to do so. Cla68 (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in interested in witch hunts. Your arguments seem too fragmented to be coherient. Sorry about the bad spelling;) Ceoil (talk) 13:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC is in its initial stages. Please keep it on your watchlist. I think you'll see as it develops that it isn't a witch hunt, but long overdue. Cla68 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long overdue? Hunt? Please. Ceoil (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this last comment is a little too subtle for me (It's 10:30 here in Japan and I'm not used to staying up very late). If you have specific and detailed feedback to give, please let me have it. Cla68 (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cla, hit the 'hit' button instead of preview, and then went downstairs for coffey unaware of the devistation behind me. Eejit! Just to say I'm not awawre of most of your evidence, and so am uncomfurtible being 'named' or 'presented' in evidence. I do like your articles though, so I hope the above is not fatal. ? Ceoil (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any problem at all taking your name off of it [7]. I appreciate you taking the time to respond. Cla68 (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]