:::::::::That's good news actually, it does mean this WP account is probably ok. He'll still be able to receive emails from you (or anyone), and taking a pragmatic view your email address has already been picked up by spammers from his address book, so sending an email to his account probably won't matter at this point. However, it's also possible that the sender's address has been faked so the mail you received only appears to come from Qp10qp (there's more chance you'll follow any links within if you trust the sender). There's not really much else you can do though; Qp10qp is the only one who can be responsible for his online security. My advice to him would be to abandon his email account and create a new one (or beef up his spam filter), and to you would be not to reply to anything you receive from that address and possibly add it to your junk email blacklist. An alternative would be for you to create a throwaway account (via hotmail or something) that you use to mail him from if you really need to get in touch. I doubt his ISP will do much, if anything - it's too common. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::That's good news actually, it does mean this WP account is probably ok. He'll still be able to receive emails from you (or anyone), and taking a pragmatic view your email address has already been picked up by spammers from his address book, so sending an email to his account probably won't matter at this point. However, it's also possible that the sender's address has been faked so the mail you received only appears to come from Qp10qp (there's more chance you'll follow any links within if you trust the sender). There's not really much else you can do though; Qp10qp is the only one who can be responsible for his online security. My advice to him would be to abandon his email account and create a new one (or beef up his spam filter), and to you would be not to reply to anything you receive from that address and possibly add it to your junk email blacklist. An alternative would be for you to create a throwaway account (via hotmail or something) that you use to mail him from if you really need to get in touch. I doubt his ISP will do much, if anything - it's too common. [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: Good ideas ... I will go back in my files, make sure I have his correct e-mail, and send him a note from a throwaway account. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::: Good ideas ... I will go back in my files, make sure I have his correct e-mail, and send him a note from a throwaway account. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::Thanks. I hardly ever use that e-mail. I got some e-mails in it saying that my messages had bounced, but I didn't send any, except one to the mailing list about [[Learned Hand]], which I suspect this stems from. Whatever the invader is, it must have got into the addresses of the people I have written to in the past, such as Sandy, Bencherlite, etc. The account has always been spam free and seems all right again now, but I shall delete it. [[User:Qp10qp|qp10qp]] ([[User talk:Qp10qp#top|talk]]) 22:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
FYI, is not my natural trait. I seem to have developed some dispositions as a result of my excursions into the Wikipedia Wild West - not always a happy or fun place. However, it is my aim to make it happier by telling people when they are being unreasonable. I am sure everyone will thank me someday for telling them what to do - my kids already offer thanks daily for my many motherly corrections. (You know by now that I am kidding I hope). No really, a friend is someone who tells you when you are being unreasonable and I certainly feel that many FAC reviewers and the FAC directors assistants stray into that area every so often. : ) NancyHeisetalk03:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The FAC director's assistants don't strike me as unreasonable. In any case, better to get them onside—as in sport, no point arguing with the referee.
In general, when a reviewer is unreasonable, I leave that with them. Better to respond with reason oneself than in kind. Reason is anyway a complex judgement, since some believe that faith, or allegiance to one denomination, is itself unreasonable. One good technique is to leave it a day or so before responding to objections: sometimes one can reject, or appear to reject, an objection too quickly. qp10qp (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I felt a bit guilty about lumbering you with all that extra work at the end. But, as I've been saying to Nancy, it often pays to meet objections half way. Many congratulations on the FA. You've worked so hard on what is a very difficult subject and made the article an invaluable resource. I'm sure to visit it often for its clear delineation of the micro-evolution of the Reformation, the precise details of which I'm incapable of holding in my memory. qp10qp (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
St. Edward's crown
Hunt and Ives say that Anne Boleyn was the first woman and the only queen consort to be crowned with St. Edward's crown. Hunt explains: "This unprecedented deviation from the rules of coronation articulates Anne's lawful right to be queen by placing her in the line of succession of English monarchs, through the visual link to St Edward... At the same time, this visual emblem of legitimate succession links Anne's coronation to the future coronation and supremacy of the legitimate heir, assumed to be male, now visible beneath Anne's coronation robes." So, Hunt suggests that Anne was crowned with St. Edward's crown because she was pregnant and carrying an heir, who, although female and not male as they assumed, would 25 years later be crowned with the same crown. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I think you need to make that clearer in the text, because it is not self-evident. Like me, most readers will not know the significance of St Edward's Crown, and certainly won't grasp the speculated connection between it and Anne's pregnancy. I have to admit that my first thought was to wonder what a crown has to do with pregnancy. qp10qp (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments on WP rules
Thank you for your thoughts and encouragement, and thanks for the pudding link! I feel with you, looking after SHAKESPEARE! I have hitherto been lucky with my rewrites and edits (many in extreme backwaters). I even rewrote / rearranged parts of a biased pudding like Mary Queen of Scots without, to my surprise, any trouble (it's also something of a backwater). I really like WP because of its infinite(?) scope and the cornucopia of images. And there are many fascinating articles, much more than anyone can read. It's all-important, though, that everyone can contribute, because, in the end, that's the foundation of it. Buchraeumer (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Attempts to create rival sites with vetted editors are failing because so few editors are involved. If one wants to write "perfect" articles, then it's best to stay away from high-turnover pages like Elizabeth I, but it's good sport. Fortunately, William Shakespeare holds together surprisingly well. This is because a handful of solid editors keep their eye on it. It's a shame the whole of Wikipedia can't be the same, but there aren't enough such editors to go round. qp10qp (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sort of replying to the Elizabeth page, because I think it's important: I am sorry that no one mentions the problem of bias or even leyenda negra in secondary historical writing, which is of vital importance if WP is so much against original sources. Even in cases where the more recent research has pointed to such problems, usually nothing happens in the "summaries" for a very long time, if ever. Then there are cases where there are no summaries or biographies, like thousands of not so terribly important people (e.g. Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick). One must differentiate between huge subjects like the Reformation, or Henry VIII, and very small ones like Christopher Blount. One good thing about WP is that there are so many biographies. As WP is made by really unselfish collaborators, there should not be too straight-laced, unrealistic standards: WP would neither be so rich, nor so popular!
There is also the problem of motivation: Since 4 February, I completely rewrote and expanded by almost three times Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester. There is a special problem with Leicester, which is briefly explained in the article. For you, it's important to know the following quotes from the 1950s and 1970s: G.R.Elton: "a handsome, vigorous man with very little sense"; Conyers Read: "England, indeed, was well rid of him" (commenting on his death in Lord Burghley...); C. Wilson, Netherlands..: "Leicester represented all that was worst in the politics and culture of the English Renaissance" (he was unquestionably the "Patron of Letters", as E. Rosenberg titled a seminal academic study in the 1950s). They do never cite any source for their verdict. You also have to know that there are comparatively few books about him, although there are thousands of important letters and he figured everywhere (and significantly) in Elizabethan life and politics, as is indirectly shown, for example, by the works on Cecil and Walsingham by Conyers Read. If I were allowed only to repeat statements as the above in WP, I could get nowhere, I would simply not do anything! And WP needs motivated people, we are not the students who just copy from here! Buchraeumer (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right (though at least Charles Wilson makes his anti-Elizabeth bias quite clear). Which is why I think it is best to have an array of accounts open while editing. (I am working on Martin Luther at the moment—a terrible page—and you should see the mountain of books around me here!) That way, one can try to approximate to a standard account. I usually have an old standard account or two open alongside the more recent ones, in case the pendulum of revisionism is swinging too far. When I was doing the FAR on Edward VI of England (this article is holding up well, presumably because it's not as popular as Elizabeth I of England), I kept Jordan's old two-volume biography open in front of me, even though recent historians have trashed his pro-Somerset bias: I expect Somerset will be partly rehabilitated in the future, and so I was cautious. But in my opinion one shouldn't go too far in countering bias if the bias appears in the majority of standard accounts—I don't think that's Wikipedia's job. And that way lies madness, because one could start to care too much.qp10qp (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I took the hint about going mad. But that's the web, you go invariably mad! I remember that, indeed, Edward VI of England, when I had a look at it some months ago, it struck me as being surprisingly NPOV! It's really a great article! Please, please do not take that personally, but the problem with Elizabeth I, I think, is not so much deterioration, but some inherent flaws (there were some serious gaps: no privy council; no Puritans and her persecution of them; Drake was missing on the Spain section...instead Elizabeth was not responsible when things went wrong, but it was forced upon her by her ministers, who in there turn are hardly ever mentioned; but the literary flowering is somehow her merit, although she didn't herself do anything for it...a whole section on the life and death of Thomas Seymour, while she "decided" (!!??) after a few months, that she wouldn't marry Robert Dudley and off he goes...). I know I am really, really nasty, please pardon! But boldly, after having myself laboured hard on three different points, I dare say it is already better now. It is logically much more difficult to portray a 70-year life, than a 15-year one. And there are absolutely brilliant pieces, like the Religious Settlement one! I really hope you pardon me!- Apropos Martin Luther, if he drives you mad, I can only recommend "his" Bible (that of 1534, keep away from all post-1546 editions!!). There is a facsimile one with Cranach pictures (it's a real bargain). I bought it for the pictures and found myself absorbed in the text! I think he missed his job. He should have become history writer! Try his preface to the Book of Daniel, you don't believe how gripping it is! Good luck! Buchraeumer (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he's a gifted and gripping writer! Do you have the edition with the dragon wearing the pope's crown or the one without? I think it was removed between very early editions.
You put your finger on it when you said that Edward VI of England is easier than Elizabeth I of England because it's much smaller in scope. You think that deterioration is not the problem with the latter, but I wince now to see that the article has sections titled "The Barbary States", "Ottoman Empire" and "Japan". I don't recognise the use of the word "Puritans" where it has been included for the beginning of Elizabeth's reign, or the point of the badly written, misplaced paragraph beginning with "Regnans in Excelsis". I could go on—prose sharpness and paragraph structure have been eroded, but most editors don't seem to care about pithiness. I don't think there's too much on the Elizabethan literary age, to be frank, and it is harder to fit Drake in than you might think: whether Marlowe or Drake, the issue of how to link such individuals to Elizabeth in a biographical article is tricky (I have no issues with your addition on Drake, but it does not even mention Elizabeth). I think the Thomas Seymour incident may contain, though irretrievably buried, the keys to Elizabeth, and it is surprising how much space is given to it in biographies. It is also unmissably vivid. A Wikipedia article has to tell a story, and it is tougher to include political minutiae and keep the readability. Also, I have to admit that it was beyond me to summarise the operations of the council or parliament over such a long period. I opted instead for an early/late reign orientation, and if you look closely you will see that the article contains its share of criticism of late Elizabeth and addresses the question of Protestant mythology. The "Ireland" section is quite uncompromising.
But the task of summarising Elizabeth in one page is impossible. The only systematic answer is to write lots of new articles on all the parts of the reign that are glossed over (the one-page format is a serious limitation on Wikipedia). I have to say that tolerable articles like Elizabeth I of England are not the main problem at the moment, because there are so many others that need work more badly. I have Mary I of England on my list, for example. I'm not sure I'm brave enough for Henry VIII of England because it will be as impossible to write a summary of his reign as it was of Elizabeth's. Whatever the result, it would not satisfy everyone, and the article will always have a high deterioration rate. On the other hand, it deserves at least to be dragged out of its present mediocrity. Perhaps the worst article on a major monarch is Philip II of Spain—how one could write a single page on him I do not know. qp10qp (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huge pope's crown, yes! I happen to own a small paperback edition with the text and woodcuts of "Wittenberg 1545", in this there is also the pope's crown (Apocalypse ch. X). The facsimile is of 1534, I understand it's the first ever edition of the complete Bible. The facsimile was by TASCHEN a couple of years ago, ed. by Stephan Füssel. It is from a unique copy with coloured woodcuts. The colours make a wonderful difference!
Re Thomas Seymour, I do think that it is a really nice summary on him, a few weeks ago, I read it and it was great fun and there was a good quote, which I never had read before! I only used the fact that it has its own section to excuse my relatively recent expansion on Elizabeth and Dudley; such as it used to be, it was simply too misleading! The reader was left with the impression that she actually "decided" very early on never to marry him, and the implication was that she told him and everyone else so. Now this cannot be farther from all evidence. It's not longer than Seymour, if not shorter, and it is useful as an example of her character, regarding jealousy and so on, which I think should not entirely be absent, and the references are sound. Drake's Cadiz voyage is now mentioned, I tagged it at the end of the Netherlands campaign, which I tried to clarify or explain somewhat. I tried to give some context to the long quote of Elizabeth's famous letter to Leicester; before, it was not clear, why it was there, other than perhaps to show that the recipient was a fool (Sorry!). I bolstered my words with a summary of Oxford UP! As it was before, the Armada was only caused by Leicester's incompetence in the Netherlands, provoking an entirely peaceful Philip. It's not anti-Philip, but I mentioned in a footnote that he was intent on the Enterprise anyway as per Geoffrey Parker (Drake's voyages very much contributed to that, that's why I put him in). Lastly, the privy council of the 1590s! That was a pleasant little piece about her "second reign" (John Guy!), and I think it fits well into the Last Years. As I personally couldn't spot the privy council anywhere outside the intro, I thought it wouldn't harm to mention the Essex-Robert Cecil rivalry. So will I end praising myself.
And there is really enough of parliaments, I for once am not particularly keen on them (and I don't understand anything of Elizabethan parliaments)! I didn't intend, when I started this, to bother you with my edits to Elizabeth of this month, and I swear I will abstain from the article in the future (largely). I wouldn't have thought that there are pro-Spanish edits! In German encyclopedias however, one finds qite a lot of strange pro-catholic distortions on topics as Mary Stuart (you can often read that James I was a catholic!) Another country, another world history!- And please don't think that I am anti-Catholic or something: My mother is from Berlin (ex-"protestant"), my father is from Augsburg ("catholic"). Not that anyone would believe in God, but the cultural abysses are insuperable at the core!- Really, it was no fun to be the child in between. Good Luck with ML! Buchraeumer (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I took that out about the pro-Spanish thing because I remember this comes up on the Spanish Armada article, not here. But there is a Spanish lobby, and to an extent they have a point, because Drake looks very different to them. I think so long as we don't extol Drake, who after all was a privateer, then the article will be fine. Good historians know the truth about Drake, that his late career was a failure and that he behaved selfishly during the Armada, but the superficial view is that he was some great proto-imperial hero. Judging by the Spanish Armada talkpage (see thread: "English Bias & the Armada Myth"), the views of historians have not fully percolated through. Clearly Elizabeth's reign saw the origins of English seapower, but I don't put much of that down to her.
No, I didn't assume you were anti-Catholic—I don't think in those terms. I don't even know if Hans Holbein the Younger (my hero and my pet article!) was Protestant or Catholic, though his father was from Augsburg and a Catholic also.qp10qp (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Qp10qp, I didn't mean to trouble you any longer, but as you mentioned Philip II of Spain, I couldn't resist to treat you to this piece from the Spanish WP's lead section to their Felipe II:
"Aún hoy en día, la historiografía anglosajona y protestante, representa a Felipe II como un ser fanático, despótico, criminal, monstruo imperialista y genocida. Sus victorias fueron minimizadas hasta lo anecdótico (salvo unos pocos ejemplos como la Batalla de Lepanto) y sus derrotas magnificadas en exceso, a pesar de que no supusieron grandes cambios políticos o militares, como la pérdida de una pequeña parte de la Grande y Felicísima Armada debido a un fuerte temporal, que además los historiadores anglosajones "transformaron" en una gran victoria inglesa."
(Even nowadays, Anglo-Saxon and Protestant historiography represents Philip II as a fanatic, despotic, criminal, genocidal being and an imperialistic monster. His victories have been minimized to the anecdotical (apart from a few examples as the Battle of Lepanto), and his defeats have been exaggerated in excess, although they didn't mean great political or military changes, as the loss of a small part of the Great and Most Felicitous Aramada due to a strong storm, which on top the Anglo-Saxon historians "transformed" into a great English victory.)
Oh, dear! I must stress that Geoffrey Parker has recieved the Principe de Asturias prize for his seminal work on Felipe, so Spanish WP is not beyond reform. But I hardly could stop laughing! I think the English article is quite good, it's a good summary. Incidentally, I also love Holbein's paintings (and those of his father), and I was amazed about the scores of images in the WPCommons. I also think that many people in the 16th century didn't quite know if they were catholic or protestant, although I don't think they were cynics. There are certainly more religious chameleons out there than general history writing allows for. Sorry for this Sunday intrusion and you should try Henry VIII, if it's your epoch, motivation is important! Buchraeumer (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some excellent, balanced books on Philip in English, not only by Parker but by Kamen and Pierson. Last year I read Israels' book on the Dutch Republic, which gives an acute view of Philip's strategy.
I believe the collection of Holbein images on Commons now is pretty comprehensive. The design drawings for me were a revelation, and I can look at drawings like File:Triumph of Wealth, by Hans Holbein the Younger.jpg in full res forever. For me, he's the greatest draughtsman there ever was.
I think if I could go back to one place and time in history, it would be Augsburg in about 1510. I imagine it bristling with gold and metalsmiths, print workshops, and artists's studios, all exuding that devotion to line characteristic of the region. I've always wondered why the Holbeins left, but no one knows. qp10qp (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow , have a look at the viewing figures for this month,[[1]] from nothing to 4,000 yesterday, today,s viewing figures will be even higher. Thanks for supporting me on the talkpage about Setwisohi's revert. regards (Off2riorob (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, the reason I am fussing about with this article is because I am highly conscious of the thousands of people who will be reading that page at the moment. You may be amused to know how I got involved in the page. I was listening to "Any Questions" last year, and since Julie Kirkbride was on it, I looked her up. It said in the article that she had been voted the sexiest female MP (or something like that) in a Sky blog poll. I removed this as irrelevant tosh from a poor source. But I was reverted; I removed it again and was reverted again. I was then contacted by someone close to her—I think it was her constituency chairman or agent—who said Kirkbride wanted this to stay in the article. I let it go then because, though I knew that was wrong, I wasn't that arsed. Interesting to note that this guardian is rather keeping his head down at the moment and letting us edit as we will: perhaps he has left the sinking ship. I'm repelled by what has gone on, but I'll still keep an eye out to make sure the article is fair and doesn't become an attack piece. When things die down, I'll try to format the refs nicely as well. qp10qp (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks a lot for your suggestions in the peer review! I've rewritten some of the lead to address the issues you pointed out, and left you a response at the peer review page. Jafeluv (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Boleyn
Hello, an IP has been adding lots of text (all sourced) to the Anne Boleyn article. Some of it looks as if it was copied directly from the book he or she is soucing from.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Qp10qp , If you have the time and inclination, this article seems to be a bit one sided and in neeed of a little neutral rewrite, I could use your respected help/advice on that. Regards. I left a comment on the talk [[2]] .(Off2riorob (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
McBride. ( the guillotine has already dropped on him)
If you have a free moment, have a look at the work I did on the Damion McBride article yesterday [[3]] . I did over 2 hours of editing on it and got reverted... I was annoyed. The article was awful, I would appreciated your thoughts.. I was so angry,I put a question on help..[[4]].. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It is an appalling feeling to do two two hours editing and get reverted: it's happened to me. I don't know anything about Derek Draper (the article you link to), but looking through the diffs, I think your instincts are correct. You quite rightly removed some silly political gossip and nicknaming that shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. At the very least, the other editor should have found an accommodation between your edits and his/hers by discussing them on the talk page and negotiating a combined text. The help desks aren't usually much help for this sort of thing, unfortunately. I suggest calmly raising this first of all on the talk page and going from there. With sources and policies behind you, you have a strong hand, but (I'm not saying it's the case here) some people edit the way they do for political reasons, which makes it difficult. qp10qp (talk) 22:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He reverted me and said to talk about it and then he logged off...? Thanks for looking, there are some awful articles when you have a look around. Nicknaming.. I had a little tiff about removing.. chipmunk from the Hazel Blears article... next it will be noddy and big ears..Brown is starting to look like Grumpy from the 7 dwarfs. Best regards to you.(Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for informing me, but I made my comment. (I believe the main editors should decide on a page by page basis.) Not a fan of voting. qp10qp (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tony blair and the secret israeli cabal section.
Hi, would you give me some advice or comment on this section [[5]] I have left comments on the talk regarding my intention to rewrite the section as it is twaddle, with undue weight and is basically coatracking another subject on to the blair bio. Actually I would like to remove most of it and add what is left to another section, what do you think? Regards. (Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, I thought he might hit trouble, if only because he did it en masse, which was provocative. A few pictures here and there when needed would probably not have aroused annoyance. I don't think it will go to court, though, because the gallery has too much to lose.
I'd like to see a compromise whereby the gallery allows us quite a large picture but smaller than their max. The tiny pictures they traditionally display are not much use to Wikipedia, and we don't really need the massive ones either. I think all they're bothered about is revenue, but I can't see how they could lose revenue from Wikipedia (any decent publisher will continue to pay to reproduce images and is hardly going to copy them off the internet). I had a good mind to write to the NPG to point out how many of their publications I have bought to help me edit Wikipedia articles; I'm sure you're the same. Wikipedia is actually publicising their gallery and paintings.
I've not got much time for Wikipedia at the moment, but I hope to get some space in the autumn. Nice to hear from you, Johnbod. qp10qp (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to my views. They made it pretty clear they were open to such a deal, but I can see they have to insist on their full rights under UK law to be recognised also. The law doesn't allow that one filesize is PD & another copyright imo. Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Shelley
I'm prepared to admit I was long winded by my addition concerning the blackmailing of Shelley by Thomas Medwin but the section concerned is misleading. Medwin strongly denied the charge of blackmail and the letter exists and isn't a blackmail attempt. Mary Shelley was annoyed, possibly justly, by Medwin making a career from his friendship with Byron and Shelley. The subsequent biography by Medwin does not name the child or the mother so the note is wrong. I'm loathed to point this out since the ire of the Shelley-ites will be down on me like a brick. Dorkinglad
The information is properly sourced to Seymour and Bieri. Medwin is a primary source and a biased one—so he is not reliable. Nor can you interpret Medwin yourself, which would count as original research. qp10qp (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laurent Joubert
Hi Qp10qp. Long time no see! Hope all is well.
I was reading the other day about Laurent Joubert, a 16th century French physician who was personal physician to Catherine de Medici and Henry III of France. He was also a pupil of Guillaume Rondelet. The English Wikipedia doesn't have an article on Laurent Joubert, and there are no links to him, though he is mentioned in the references to two articles. There are, however, articles in French and German (stubs) and a longer article in Italian: fr:Laurent Joubert, de:Laurent Joubert, it:Laurent Joubert. And there is also a picture of him at File:Laurent Joubert (1529-1583).jpg. I thought about requesting a translation of the Italian article and amlgamating in bits from the other two stubs, but then I thought I might try coming here first and seeing if you have any sources relating to this person? If you don't, no worries, I'll do something myself or ask for a translation, but I wanted to ask you first. Carcharoth (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing on Joubert as physician to Catherine, even in the several books about her that I own. But there is a good account of his writings and theories in Society and Culture in Early Modern France, by Natalie Zemon Davies, which I have a copy of. If you make an article, I can add information from that to a section on his works. I can read the Italian article, but its notes are a little obscure and I am not sure how the information relates to the bibliography there. qp10qp (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on Gray's Inn and was considering sending to to FAC - as such, I asked User:Awadewit for her provisional opinion of the article. She's unable to deal with it at the moment and recommended you - would you mind taking a looksee and checking if it passes the basic requirements for FA, grammar or spelling problems excluded? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Everything's fine: my writing's focused elsewhere at the moment, and I can't multitask. Just checked the article, and it survived its big day virtually unscathed. qp10qp (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
French fairs and theatrical displays
I was reading recently about the McDonald's opened in the Louvre mall (it seems that despite the international papers depicting it as something that horrified the French, McDonald's has managed to enter the French national consciousness). I noticed a reference to the "iconic Salon de l'Agriculture" (and made a redirect to the article), and that led me to Foire de Paris (the French article on what is said to be largest such fair in Paris - I may try to write a stub for Foire de Paris), and while searching Wikipedia for the word "foire", I came across Théâtre de la foire. Those seem to be public shows, but they reminded me of the royal theatre which I read about in relation to Anne of Denmark (here) and Catherine de' Medici (you wrote Catherine de' Medici's court festivals, for example). Would you know whether these public theatres at fairs were related in any way, or were they something completely different, with their own history? Carcharoth (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theatre gradually made its way from the religious street floats and tableaux of the middle ages into pageants put on specially for and by the nobility. The royal architects and artists regularly produced temporary stages and decorations for street processions and carnival occasions, and relics of street theatre can be seen in the festivities laid on by the crown. The great fairs had long theatrical traditions, and in France they were often the venue for popular theatre, and for the acting out of Misrule and Charivari. The royals took up these themes, and their entertainments were then copied in turn by the public, so I expect the influence went both ways. qp10qp (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Soviet invasion of Poland for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Labattblueboy (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really restoring the FA version, but taking into account any good changes since. I've hundreds of edits to the article and drafted the FA version: and the talk pages will show that I've discussed and discussed the material in the past. I think it's better to make the changes, which are, after all, mainly restorations of shorter wordings, and removals of POV and large quotes, so that we can get this article to pass its review as soon as possible. qp10qp (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gave up after spending several hours on it last week. The experience was too negative. I addressed the main issues at the FAR, with only one section left to do. But people piled in complaining. If the nominator's points are allowed to be addressed, it shouldn't be much work to get this kept. However, it's unrewarding trying to fight reversions and attempts to keep unsatisfactory or superfluous material. The article is basically an outstanding page with some crap stuck to it.qp10qp (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I was looking for this article to fail I wouldn't be working on the article as well. This being said, I am going to point out areas that a I feel are weak and work towards improving them. If I have to do that alone, so be it, but I intend to get as much done as I can. --Labattblueboy (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I've been working on a significant expansion on this, and while it isn't anywhere near finished I wondered if, as one of the main contributors to James I, you could cast an eye over it and let me know if I've erred anywhere? Parrotof Doom20:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that impressed by the sources you're using, to be honest. I'm no fan of Antonia Fraser, who tends to make too many assumptions and can lean to the Catholic side. I recommend James Travers, Gunpowder: The Players Behind the Plot, which is superbly illustrated with facsimile documents, as well as Mark Nicholls Investigating Gunpowder Plot and Alan Haynes The Gunpowder Plot. qp10qp (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have the Haynes book, I'm just getting to the end of Fraser's book at which point I'll start on Haynes. Where sources conflict, I tend to err on the side of caution and generalise whatever they disagree on. I've noticed that Fraser does assume some things - like Wintour's signature for instance, and the tunnel. Nicholls is a good source - he wrote most of the biogs on the ODNB, which I've been studying and am slowly inserting. 'tis a big article though! Parrotof Doom21:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my very slow progress towards the Mary Shelley featured topic, I have worked up another article. If you have time, could you take a look at it and weigh in at the peer review? Your input is always much appreciated. Awadewit (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them.
And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul."
Are these Wikipedia emails (as in sent from Qp10qp's WP account) or emails from his private email account (ie hotmail, gmail etc)? If the former, this account should probably be blocked as compromised until he can sort it out; if the latter, it's probably just that his address book has been harvested via a trojan or something and you've all been added to a spamlist somewhere. The latter is annoying, but not serious as long as you don't reply to anything in emails from that account. EyeSerenetalk09:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news actually, it does mean this WP account is probably ok. He'll still be able to receive emails from you (or anyone), and taking a pragmatic view your email address has already been picked up by spammers from his address book, so sending an email to his account probably won't matter at this point. However, it's also possible that the sender's address has been faked so the mail you received only appears to come from Qp10qp (there's more chance you'll follow any links within if you trust the sender). There's not really much else you can do though; Qp10qp is the only one who can be responsible for his online security. My advice to him would be to abandon his email account and create a new one (or beef up his spam filter), and to you would be not to reply to anything you receive from that address and possibly add it to your junk email blacklist. An alternative would be for you to create a throwaway account (via hotmail or something) that you use to mail him from if you really need to get in touch. I doubt his ISP will do much, if anything - it's too common. EyeSerenetalk21:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hardly ever use that e-mail. I got some e-mails in it saying that my messages had bounced, but I didn't send any, except one to the mailing list about Learned Hand, which I suspect this stems from. Whatever the invader is, it must have got into the addresses of the people I have written to in the past, such as Sandy, Bencherlite, etc. The account has always been spam free and seems all right again now, but I shall delete it. qp10qp (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]