User talk:Lazulilasher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

1, 2

Contents 1 Fembot 2 Louvre 3 Pieds-Noirs 4 Chopin 5 Forget Beirut... for now 6 RfA thanks 7 Funerary art 8 Funerary art 9 Johnson Creek 10 Himura Kenshin 11 The Barnstar of Recovery 12 Louvre 13 Pied-noir review 14 re: comments 15 RfA thank-spam 16 Louvre at FAC 17 Hi. 18 Louvre copyedit redux 19 Request for Peer Review help

[edit] Fembot

Yeah, I've got a stalker today, someone with no life (and based on his insults, probably very insecure about his age and weight) who has nothing better to do than bounce through a wide range of IPs and vandalize Wikipedia, usually on pages to do with Kryptos, or else just some other page that I've edited somewhere, such as List of Slovaks. I have no idea why he came to your page though. To my knowledge you and I have never interacted anywhere. I guess you're just lucky.  :) --Elonka 23:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louvre

Où étiez-vous? La dernière fois que j'ai vérifié vos contributions, la date était toujours au 28 février. Je commençais à m'inquiéter. Maintenant je peux respirer!

I will be more than happy to work on the Louvre with you. Will check it ASAP. I have been very busy with other matters & have not touched le Pavillon de Flore for which I have some additions, but I did go thru all the bridges on the Seine. Had plans also for the Seine as there are some inexactitudes in the article. Mais chaque chose en son temps.

Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Thanks for the comment! C'est genial, ceci. I was starting a new job and was actually in/out of France often (we're headquartered in Levellois-Perret, juste a cote de Neuilly. Due to the new job, I decided that I couldn't edit Wikipedia until I had already built a decent reputation. But, helas! Here I am! aux citoyens, aux armes, aux stylos! au travail! En avance pour la Wikipedia! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Et en l'avenir, tu peut me tutoyer, si cela conviens le situation! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Lazu, d'accord, on se tutoie. Alors tu travailles à Levallois-Perret? Bonne chance dans ton nouveau truc, ou plutôt... m.r.e! Sans rire, j'étais sur le point de confier mon inquiétude à Neddyseagoon qui semble être souvent sur les mêmes sujets que nous. Á bientôt sur notre favorite subject et autres. Frania W. (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bonjour Lazu! I read the Louvre article & will do some editing (all minor mostly words here & there) whenever I have a few minutes. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pieds-Noirs

Lazu: what's the hell in your mind against our coummunity to remove and remove data you cannot discuss about ? This story of sailors is grounded upon a couple of letters ; that's all. You cannot quote any book or novel or people correspondance containing this stupid term of "pied noir". The old pejorative term used by French of metropole was Bicots for Muslims and Arbicots for Europeans. Why do you remove my text without responding in this talk section ? --82.65.121.104 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Mauvaisegraine [1]

Hi Mauvaisegraine. Well, I didn't remove your text, it was completed by another editor see here. However, the reason I did not reply here was that the topic was being discussed elsewhere: on the article's talk page and the peer review page. I did reply to your comments on those pages. Since our last conversation, I have done more research into the term: and the existing version corresponds with what I found. Regarding the other terms which you mention and the further points which you refer, these cannot be added without a verifiable and reliable source--as said previously. Again, please understand that the edits are removed because of Wikipedia standards regarding sources and not as prejudice against you. I hope this helps, and feel free to contact me again. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lazu: who are you to make a censorship on NPOV inserts I edited about the origin of "Pied Noir" ? Are you an academic ? Have some specific expertise ? As for me, I'm a French graduate of the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris (Sciences Po) where I especially learnt contemporary History. Moreover I'm a French Algerian, born in a family settled in Algeria for six generations. I didn't canceled the former text but enriched it with new arguments.

It's not fair to removed data that can clarify a discussion. Last thing, I don't share Frania's assertion : "they always heard/used it (term pied noir)". This pejorative nickname was discovered by most of French Algerians when landing on French metropole in 1962. That can easily be confirmed through novels, articles and people correspondence before Algeria's independance.

Mauvaisegraine http://mauvaisegraine.rmc.fr/home/

Lazu:  While you were touring France looking for a job (!) I went thru the Pied-Noir article, mostly editing the name itself.  However, you will notice that the title is written "Pied-noir": the n of noir needs to be capitalized.  I am unable to change it because nowhere do I find the title when I click on edit this page.  As much as I have read on the Pieds-Noirs, and discussed it avec des amis pieds-noirs,  no one can give the origin of the expression - they always heard/used it, c'est tout!  I also re-read the book François d'Orléans, prince de Joinville (éditions France Empire, 1990), by French Admiral Jacques Guillon.  Joinville (1818-1900) was king Louis-Philippe sixth child out of seven... oops! eight. As an officer in the French Royal Navy, he did a lot of va-et-vient in the Mediterranean Sea & visited ports of N. Africa, of which he gives interesting descriptions.   However, when speaking of the French "colons", never does he use the word "pieds-noirs".  Signing off for a few hours.  Aurevoir!  Frania W. (talk) 13:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Frania, I actually went through an FAC that I withdrew for the article and your exact point was mentioned. I will move the article today to "Pied-Noir" to make it correct. The origin of the term is murky--I've read numerous claims and cited a few in that article. Honestly, maybe we should just remove the section? Lazulilasher (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the Origin of the Term portion for now. Also, I was instructed that the prose is too lengthy--so feel free to apply your editing scissors :) Lazulilasher (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lazu, I checked your last change: I would keep the portion you just removed - even if the origin of the term is "murky", you did not create the murkiness, and by leaving the portion, we'll have more of a chance of someone helping with the matter. Bon couscous! Frania W. (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. I disagree with the above though: in French the noir would not be capitalised, and in truth I've never seen it written that way in English (that I recall). Anyway, I'm not saying it's the end of the world, but I hope resolution can be found on the article's talk page.--Gregalton (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was just excited to see people showing up on the talk page. It's always better editing articles when there are more people. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Mauvaisegraine (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Mauvaisegraine, also, I would note that I did look at the page you provided. However, it cannot be used as a source because the page is not independent, in other words, it is a point of view site. As I said earlier, I have nothing against/for the Algerian or Pied-Noir community, my interest is merely scholarly. Please feel free to contact me for further discussion. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chopin

I notice on your French talk page that you are contributing heavily to the Chopin pages la. Maybe we have the next project? I love Chopin! Lazulilasher (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oui, moi aussi j'adore Chopin. I spent hours transcribing tonalities that were given in either the English or German manner & checking the opus numbers. The only way to do it was to verify each composition against the partitions I have - ça a été du boulot and, as I said, it took hours, but time well spent. By the way, the article on Chopin already exists in en:wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric_Chopin Musicalement vôtre, Frania W. (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forget Beirut... for now

Actually, I had a change of heart and started writing about Nablus, nearly tripling it in size. Its a GA nominee right now, if you would like a run at it ;) I won't abandon Beirut, but for now I'm stuck on Nablus; It's a very interesting city. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just realized how busy you are with the Louvre and Pied-noir, so I understand if you won't have the time to review the Nablus article or at least now that is. I also decided to do some work on Beirut, first let me gather some resources. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thanks

Hello and thank you so much for your support of my RfA. I decided to withdraw at this moment. Thanks also for your nice advice on burn out. After a month of vandal fighting, all the comments helped! Cheers. Prashanthns (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funerary art

Yes, I was just thanking you for your review on the page there; thanks again! Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no worries! As this is not something I'm to aware of, I learned a bit from reading it! Lazulilasher (talk) 11:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Funerary art

Thanks for your help with Funerary art! Ling.Nut (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You too, it was a great article to begin with--so the job wasn't too hard...Lazulilasher (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Johnson Creek

Thanks for taking a look, and I'm glad you like it. If anything struck you as missing or odd, please let me know. I've spent gobs of time on that watershed map, and it's the reason I know I'm still in map-making kindergarten. The people who hang out at Talk:WikiProject_Maps have all sorts of ideas and suggestions about maps in general, only some of which I understand. Finetooth (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you and Ruhrfisch added a location map. I've got to say, I've fallen in love with that template! I think I'm going to read the article again. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's at FAC and doing well so far. I will try to get back to Louvre again tomorrow. It seems to me that it's moving along toward possible GA again. It's undergone so many changes in the last few weeks that I can't claim to have carefully examined the whole thing from top to bottom. Finetooth (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. I think we should take Louvre slowly--so no need to hurry, so no worries about your FAC (I know what that's like, with the time pressure!) I put the article up for Peer Review so we'll see what comes--hopefully some good advice. Also, just out of curiosity, do you have any interest in trying to get Willamette River/Columbia River up to FAC? I've always thought they would be an interesting project. Best of luck at FAC....I'll drop by at some point after reading through it more thoroughly. 69.114.239.56 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That was me, btw....forgot to log in....Lazulilasher (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Himura Kenshin

Hello, thanks for the peer review in Himura Kenshin. I still have a doubt about the article and its about the balance between in-universe and out-of-universe information in the article. I think I could reduce some in-universe sentences and look for more reception. Thoughts? Regards.--Tintor2 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tintor, I agree -- that's a good thought. The article is comprehensive enough, but it may be beneficial to remove some of the extreme detail in order to enhance readability. I like your idea of balancing with out-of-universe information. One thought I have is perhaps expand into a discussion of the recurring themes of the chracter, which I notice Madlax does to good effect. As you edit, feel free to stop by and ask for input. Although I am not an expert, I always like when others comment on articles on which I am working because I love the fresh viewpoint. Btw, your work is excellent! Lazulilasher (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Started a new discussion at here. Feel free to join and give your advice.--Tintor2 (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll stop by as soon as I finish with moving house! Lazulilasher (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Barnstar of Recovery

		The Barnstar of Recovery
		Given specifically for your work in helping to save quirky subject from deletion, but with thanks for all your other contributions to Wikipedia. Blair - Speak to me 05:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it's very touching! Lazulilasher (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louvre

I did a complete read-through today and made further copyediting changes, mostly minor. The one big change involved deleting the unsourced statistics about the satellite museum in Lens. The article doesn't need them to be good, and they can always be restored if a source is found. I feel certain that Louvre is GA quality or close to it, and it might even be headed for FA. I'd suggest that you nominate it for GA or seek a peer review to get a fresh pair of eyes to give it a serious read. Good job. Finetooth (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe...great minds think alike: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Louvre/archive1 ... Lazulilasher (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think Louvre is at GA or better status already. Glad to help with Pied-Noir again and good to cross paths again. Thanks too for your work at peer review - we can always use more reviewers there, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing! I like to review articles from time-to-time, as I know what it is like to wait for feedback :) I think Louvre is getting close, but I feel like it still needs a bit of work. We'll see...I may nominate to FA in a few days after I get a chance to fool around with the nuts and bolts...Lazulilasher (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pied-noir review

Please take a look at the review page. User Mauvaisegraine seems to want to sabotage the article by insisting on inserting his inappropriate material. I believe you've encountered him before? Perhaps if you engage him directly it might help, but as you can see, my attempts at reason have failed. It's a great pity to see the article spoiled like this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Brian, thanks for commenting....This is a "First-Time" Experience for me with someone adding unsourced information. I left a message on his talk page when he was editing as an I.P., but I haven't spoken to him yet after registration. I will leave a message on his talk page, now. I actually spent time trying to source some of his claims, but didn't meet much luck. I now have access to a good library, so that might help out more (real books are much better than Google Books). I'll let you know. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

However, I would add that the username does not bode well for us. Although, I have to say, that his English writing is excellent. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: comments

Uh, sorry about that. I didn't think people really read edit comments anyway, so it wasn't necessarily being 'anti-civil' here -- I didn't mean to offend, but I do get frustrated whenever people misspell my name. Anyway, I've re-reviewed the article in question, and I was wrong. So the article has been reinstated.

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for being so civil here! Wonderful and I am happy that this resolved itself easily. I figured that you hadn't meant to offend anyone with the edit summary, but because they are so short comments are commonly misunderstood. Anyway, thanks again for the civility and also note that I admire your work at GA. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfA thank-spam

[edit] Louvre at FAC

Good for you. I took a look again just now at both the article and the FAC comments. I fixed a few truly minor things in the article that I had either missed before (likely) or that appeared since my last edit (possible). I noticed that in my browser (Firefox, recent) the left-hand column of the "Notable works" section shows "Diana of Versailles" overlapping "Michelangelo" in the second column; I didn't see how to fix this, and I didn't think it was an FAC-worthy issue, so I'm mentioning it here. I will keep watching the discussion, and I may jump into it if I have something useful to say. I won't be surprised if a famous topic like the Louvre attracts a lot of attention. Finetooth (talk) 00:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Finetooth. I like FAC for the reason that lots of issues come up. I do hope the article attracts a lot of attention and we can get the best possible article together, it is an interesting topic. Thanks for taking a look! Lazulilasher (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

err...well it's getting hit, now. The biggest oppose seems to be regarding the departments--saying it's too heavy on the history and not enough on the art. My personal feeling was that this was the correct course of action as the notable works tend to have their own pages....but, we'll see....I put up my argument, but we'll have to see how much weight it holds. It's still got a long while left, so let's see what happens! Lazulilasher (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I can help with general editing and MoS-related problems but not much with the content except in a superficial way. The serious objections at FAC seem more content-related than form-related, although form and content are not completely separable. If you add content, you risk bumping into length (form) problems that can be solved only by creating "sister" articles or expanding existing sister articles. Perhaps you can find one or more other editors, at FAC or elsewhere, with expert knowledge in the fine arts to help with expanding the whole set of Louvre-related articles in a coordinated way. Finetooth (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer of help, I just might take you up on it. I'm at the library now preparing to blitz the latter sections. Honestly, I think I may have been a bit biased whilst editing the article--my preference for all things history IS evident, now that another editor has pointed it out. So, the department area does need work -- I've got a pile of material here, though, and I think I can get it in to Johnbod's satisfaction by the deadline. As far as other articles go, yes, they will need to be completed. My feeling was that the Louvre should be completed first as when I found it, it was in a shambles and with en-Wiki's high Google rank, I felt that this should be remedied. Anyway, I'll get back to you VERY soon with a plea for copyediting help :) Lazulilasher (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I am waiting to weigh in on the FAC until the rewrites on the fly (isn't FAC fun?) are done. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha...I Love FAC...many complain about it, but as far as I can tell, it works. Yes, I am trying to add more depth to the art section, and I do believe that I can do it. Thanks for the note, and I'll see you on the other side ;) Lazulilasher (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'd remembered, but we'd better be quiet or people will think there's a cabal! Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

L, in response to your Saturday message, yes, I'll try to get to it today. If not, tomorrow (Sunday) for sure. Finetooth (talk) 22:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to see the FAC closed unsuccessfully - I kept thinking I would read the article carefully once your changes were done and now it is too late. Sorry not to have weighed in more while the FAC was open, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, quelle traveste. I thought it was ready--but I guess not. You'll see it back up in a month or so, so keep an eye out and you can support then. :) Thanks for the kind words. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi.

Could you peer review Thirty Years' War and help spotlight? Thanks. Mm40|Talk|Sign|Review 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it tommorow. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louvre copyedit redux

Hi L. I've gone through the whole article again, and I believe it to be much improved. You added a lot of new data and eliminated the last of those lists that seem to sink to the bottoms of many articles as though they were junk drawers. I made quite a few nit-picky adjustments, and I believe the prose flows pretty nicely and that the MoS error rate is quite low. I ran into three problems I couldn't fix, and they are listed on the article's talk page under "Missing word". Probably something like "and" or "but" is all that is missing, but I didn't dare guess. It would be good to fix these three ASAP. Finetooth (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Finetooth, I can't thank you enough. I am going to take a look at the errors straightaway...let's hope my internet connection holds out...Thanks again! Lazulilasher (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)