User talk:Ceoil

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Friendship

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Animals underfoot

[edit]

Hi, saw this and immediately thought of you and that tomb

John de Pitchford

ϢereSpielChequers 08:21, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, in wood and he died in 1285, thats very early! Very tempted to divert to researching the Pitchford Estate! Ceoil (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might like that, I've categorised a huge number of photos from English churches on Commons, and this struck me as an unusual survival of prereformation woodcarving ϢereSpielChequers 11:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its way earlier than what I've been reading about, and interesting in that its so formative for later styles (the niches are already in place). That the wood has survived for 700 odd years is really something. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tomb at St Edith, Eaton
I've just looked it up in Pevsner's book on Shropshire, two short mentions, "well preserved" "7' long" and one of two late 13th century oaken effigies in the county. Definitely something to come back to after your celtic thing. Not sure whether we should be looking at an article on that monument or the general topic of Oaken effigies from medieval England. the other 13th century one in Shropshire is at Berrington, but we don't currently have any internal shots of
 Media related to All Saints Church, Berrington at Wikimedia Commons the geograph has some of the really interesting font but not the effigy. There's also a 14th century effigy at St Edith's which I suspect is File:St Edith, Eaton - Effigy - geograph.org.uk - 2246215.jpg (no dog or lion underfoot and the bier looks Victorian to me). ϢereSpielChequers 11:47, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
well now you have me hooked. The simplicity of the St Edith tomb and that little is known...line and sinker. Ceoil (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This takes me back... I remember being terrified by the tomb of The Wolf of Badenoch when taken to Dunkeld Cathedral as a small child. Not because he was a scary person (he was) but because they turned him into stone along with his pet dog which they put by his feet. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Jim, into my top 20 the charmingly named tomb of The Wolf of Badenoc goes. I would have been terrified also, in fact...[gulp!!] Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in, but there is certainly something that can be written here. I think a key piece of research here is a 1909 paper by Alfred Cooper Fryer in Archaeologia, on "Wooden Monumental Effigies in England and Wales". [7] And a revised version of that paper from 1924. More recently, there is a nice doctoral dissertation (Proefschrift) on "Early Secular Effigies in England" from the Thirteenth Century here: [8] That includes a list of 213 examples, with images, several of which are both early with either effigy or tomb/box or both in wood. We have images of most (see below), many look to be in surprisingly good condition given their age. Mostly lions at their feet, I think, not dogs. Only three have the original wooden box - Pitchford, Westminster, and Salisbury. I've not included Pitchford again below, and we don't seem to have images for two in St Mary's, Woodford, Northamptonshire.[9]

The tomb of William de Valence clearly shows the early use of blank arcades as decoration, that could be filled in by "weepers" in later examples. See the discussion on p.29. We don't have a good image of the extraordinary canopied tomb of Aymer de Valence at Westminster, which is said to be the earliest example of "weepers" in England.[10] Theramin (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aymer de Valence
I hope to take my camera to the Abbey this year and I'll put Aymer on my list, but I think it might be too close to the High Altar. There has to be a reason why we don't have any photos of that specific monument considering how much we have from the Abbey. The lion v dog issue does remind me of the debate about the unsympathetic restoration of that part of Phillipe de Pot's monument. ϢereSpielChequers 08:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dog or lion?

Looking at the Wolf of Badenoch's "dog" it does appear to have a mane... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have made a start on expanding Pitchford based on sources provided by Theramin, but there is a lot more would like to dig into. Excellent research as always. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Impressed with your find of the 1924 updated version of the Fryer article at archive.com. Happy editing. Theramin (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but as usual am following your lead. I'm trying to think of an umbrella article to bring these together, but coming up with naught. Tomb Sculptures from the Court of Burgundy is obvious and catchy for the other side, but for English examples, dunno. Have always been an anglophile and am besotted by the images you provided, but don't want to get drawn into adding burial foot-notes to the bios of minor knights that nobody will ever read. Ceoil (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Er, something like Wooden tomb effigies in medieval England? Theramin (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, you and I have both worked on Tomb effigy, which could do with plenty of expansion. It averages 56 views pd, which isn't too bad. Myself, I'd sooner keep stone, alabaster & wood in the same article, as the format & style seem essentially the same. But sections on the various materials, certainly - there's stuff at Nottingham alabaster. In the later Middle Ages at least the British & French styles seem pretty similar, so a Euro-wide article is probably best until it is a lot bigger. Tomb monument and Wall tomb both go to Funerary art at present. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Needs an iconography section! Theramin would deeply appreciate if you could suggest starting points on the Early modern section (which is outside my area). Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tomb effigies of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York, by Pietro Torrigiano, Westminster Abbey

Sorry, late coming back to this. (Apologies, too much other stuff going on: I hadn't expected to be worrying about parents quite so soon after the demands of children decreased, but this is life. My very strong recommendation is to settle as near to at least some family as you can bear. And so the muse has largely escaped me for some considerable time.)

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "early modern" (late medieval? early renaissance? eg Donatello? even into the 16th or 17th centuries?) and I am by no means an expert either, but if it is tomb effigies you are after, we have things like the Tomb of Antipope John XXIII and the Scaliger Tombs. How about the tomb of Henry VII and Elizabeth of York (right)? Theramin (talk) 01:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some pickings at List of extant papal tombs. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. I though of you in the Prado. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was this year's discovery in the Prado, and it came as no surprise that you started the article ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky you! Hope you enjoyed the gallery and holiday. Ceoil (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I saw it prompted by this - short information near the painting said that 24 species of plants were identified in the "meadow" where the angels make music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks amazing!!!! Now I'm seeding with jealousy:)!!! Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Auerbach died and only a few references are missing - could you look and nominate wp:itnn? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Hi! Nice to see my watchlist lit up this morning. I got more than a little sick of Hemingway (have a stack of books to re-read, but procrastinging ... ) so I picked around the edges of the Dry Tree a bit. Still interested in getting it FA ready - five year plans & all. P.s looking at the thread above I looked through Doolittle & didn't find any errors, but I'm not great at finding errors. Is it still at FAR? Hope all is well. Victoria (tk) 15:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I would be honoured; the article has been calling at me for ages, the painting is so haunting and different. The five year plan should be put into full effect, frankly it would be really great to collab on another article, reminding that my openion of your ability has always been sky high. I need a few days to close out on the GA for the Corleck Head, and then would be delighted to switch over. Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ps, Dolittle passed FAR today, but my other main priority is to get Troika (1969 film) ready for FAC, but think it just needs a few hours of focus get the structure bang up to snuff. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on Doolittle! Whew, for getting that done. There's work & reading to be done for Hemingway & the clock is ticking so I won't be able to pivot to the Dry Tree immediately (and I'm slow). That said, I'd like to see if I'm even capable of getting an article through FAC these days. I've noticed that the reviewers are checking lots of new stuff - image placement (!!), alt text, templates (which I can't really do), & wanting to see sources for verification, among other things. So I thought maybe we should give it try & see what happens :) Victoria (tk) 23:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with new criteria tbh (although alt text can be tricky and vearing into or OR visual art pages), and it was always the challenge of FAC that attracted me the most. Haven't nomed in a year, planning to get back with the pagan head but want it to be just so. Apart from that, a collab on the Christus would be like old times; exciting and rewarding; your ability has always brought out the best in me. Ceoil (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. You're on. Let's do it. The head is creepy - gives me the heeby-jeebies. I tried to give a run through but couldn't. There's power in that object, even in pictures, even after all these many years. It's a worthy project & pairs well with the lady in the tree. Victoria (tk) 23:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it like that...to me its ancestral and although the craftsmanship is primitive see it as long ago people reaching out to the future. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People reaching to the future is probably what I mean by power. Or something. Ignore my hyperbole. Victoria (tk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks re the head, <trilled> re the tree. Ceoil (talk) 23:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So ... can you find the Nosow (2012) source? The one I'm finding is about medieval music so I'm confused. Though I know what it's sourcing - the niches & van der Weyden - is true. I think Sterling discusses the niches - will trawl through my files. Later! Victoria (tk) 23:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try re Nosow but no promises. Take it that am starting from zero with the page. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don't bother. The one that's cited in the article is this (if you can see it). Your approach is right, let's start with zero. It's not like there are a ton of sources. I searched again a couple of days ago & this popped. It's a strange context for the dry tree iconography but it discusses it & the pics are good. Victoria (tk) 00:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Nice find! PS We're rewatching s1 of House of the Dragon in anticipation of the season 2 premiere tomorrow night. It's so much better than GoT, which I found tedious from s2 onwards. I am totally on team Matt Smith; he's such a handsome rogue! Ceoil (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got dragoned out after GoT. Tried reading the book that the new series is based on & just gave up. So didn't even get through much of season one of House. That's me. Critical to a fault. Victoria (tk) 14:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
House of the Dragons is great, as somebody who also was gritting their teeth from about Ned's decapitation onwards. GoT mostly seemed like a bunch of people walking around in a boring quest-like sort of way, but the spin-off is high politics mixed with the bloodthirsty, high-stakes realism of the first season of Rome. And the casting is brilliant. I highly recommend. Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I can start on Dry Tree any time, but equally am happy to wait if you're busy. If you're busy, I might take a swing through the Hemingway subarticles before I return the huge stack of books to the library. In other words, no hurry. This is just to let you know that I've not forgotten. Victoria (tk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've not forgotten either and have been re-reading the sources. I need to get this bloody head sorted, which will take about another two weeks, and then will refocus. It's such a strange painting, would be delighted to be reabsorbed. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ps, I haven't found any new literature since the last expansion, so thinking this might be a necessarily short article. I think the notes you have in the sandbox should about cover it. After that, it's polish. Ceoil (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found new literature either. I just have to re-read and refamiliarize myself with the sandbox. It's, like, very old. Anyway, no rush. I'm still picking up the pieces from Hemingway. Good luck with the bloody head (that made me laugh). Be well & greetings to Liz. Victoria (tk) 23:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Writer's Barnstar
Ceoil, you're a tireless worker who cares passionately about interesting things and writes beautiful articles about them. You've been here long enough to know your way around the jungle of Wikipedia, and to know the snakes from the wombats. Caring passionately about things, while remaining dispassionate in outlook, is an extremely difficult balance to keep. Almost Zen sometimes. Never change, and never stop caring. John (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Begotten and the Begotten Cycle

[edit]

Been working on expanding Begotten within the confines of an abandoned userspace I had. So far, a lot of new information to sift through and I learned more details about the process of making the film look the way it is. Not sure how much detail I should go into with that for the article, as there is always the line of too much info. I have also chosen to split the sequels into a separate article detailing the trilogy, though I think I shall work on that after I finish expanding Begotten and then get THAT article up for GA. Bits and pieces moving forwards, though extremely slow in rewriting that Analysis section as that one has always been a complete mess. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your doing a good job on it and agree re "too much info": bloating the article up with passing mention and weak sources makes the reader experience bewildering. Weve been having a nostalgic movie watching Valentine weekend here, so far today my better half has made me watch three films hadn't seen before - "War Games", "Breaking Away" and would you believe..."The Graduate". Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. My only concern of splitting The Begotten Cycle into its own thing would be the sequels are not reviewed at all. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: As stated in my explanation to reviewers of my FA nominations of Begotten, most sources are frustratingly vague when it comes to the exact themes and motifs for the film. While they do cite points such as Christian motifs (The Creation, Birth and Death of Christ, etc), they mostly fail to pinpoint exact portions of mythological/spiritual references and motifs. A good example of this is when Corliss reviews the film and states "It is as if a druidical cult had re-enacted, for real, three Bible stories — creation, the Nativity and Jesus’ torture and death on Golgotha", without explaining which part is druidical and portions of that belief system they are referring to. Long story short, I am usually resorting to doing my own digging to cite explanations of such beliefs that could possibly connect to the film in the way writers describe. It is an issue cause that is under the lines of "Original research" and I am gutted over how to properly work on the section and expand it. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I got excited when you said "I learned more details about the process of making the film look the way it is", because that's something sorely lacking in pop cult FAC articles. Album FA's rarely mention the tools/techniques used to achieve the sound, for the eg the mics used and their positioning to achieve ambiance, and they almost never use the everyday language used when a band, producer and engineer sit down to mix (equivalent to camera/film choices + cinematography + cut/editorial decisions in film). To go further, I don't think I've ever seen an album article at FAC that mentions the mastering process and its impact on the final sound. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil:Oh I do Have several sources (i.e. a film festival interview and podcast interview). Themes and analysis has always been the hardest to work on for Begotten because of the lack and vagueness of specific portions writers claim are connected to the myths/legends they say it references, if that makes sense. That is where my main issue lies. Though one source says that Begotten influenced theatre productions, I have yet to find any that are explicitly stated as being inspired or influenced by the film. Production section, I have found areas to expand and also ways to add details that dont need to be in the main body, but notable enough to include as a footnote. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Sofia Gubaidulina

[edit]

On 15 March 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sofia Gubaidulina, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Begotten: The Chapters List

[edit]

Just discovered something interesting with Begotten, was reading a pdf of the DVD booklet, and just how cryptic this film is. Each scene, broken down into chapters, gives very interesting but vaguely cryptic references to a wide variety of things. They don't seem to describe the scenes in the film, as Chapter indexes usually do, but reference a whole variety of religious beliefs, quotes, and symbolism. It is one of the strangest and mysterious things I have come across while researching this film. It makes it more interesting that the director himself named these chapters for the DVD release.. Thought you would like to take a look at it. Don't know if I could ever incorporate it without it looking like original research.

Paleface Jack (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can. Just say according to "xxx...yyy". Not seeing the problem here, have used booklets a few times,][11] and they are often the best sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Linking them to the religious and mythological themes in the film (I.e. each chapter seems to reference a different thing) skeets the line of Original research and is difficult to write. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Themes of Begotten

[edit]

Deep into the Begotten expansion. I have been debating about that chapters list in the DVD booklet. I have chosen to split the Religious and Occult motifs/themes into separate sub-sections to avoid confusion. Earlier this month, Film International published a short essay on the film's ties to Alchemy and hermeticism, which is quite fascinating. The author expands on some of the post-production struggles while connecting the making of the film to the traditions found in Alchemy and Hermeticism. Looking over both beliefs, I have found a common motif that is a part of Begotten, its theme of rebirth and chaos, though I will have to do more digging for sources that directly state this. Apart from that, I have also considered finishing up my article on The Head Hunter as a possible FA nomination while I work on finishing Begotten. That film seems to be a better fit than Lake Michigan Monster at the moment. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you sometimes over think about associating general critical analysis to specific scenes. Am always ready to press go on a pre-FAC spruce on Begotten, if you decide on another article to go first, let me know and will drop everything as your articles are so dark and love the imagery. ps, I'm not a great copy editor, hopefully you are keeping our best, John in mind :) Along with the much missed Outriggr,[12] John is a serious heavy weight, as evidenced by recent work on the FAR for Byzantine Empire. Ceoil (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
John is very high tier, and I always look forward to his contributions. I am aware of overthinking in regards to articles, so I am trying to limit that. Themes/Analysis section of Begotten has been something I always saw as deeply unsatisfied with the structure all over the place. It has come a long way with this expansion, and I am confident it will be up to my high (sometimes impossible) standards. The deep dive into research has been quite enlightening on aspects I did not know about the film, and it reflects in these expansions. While there is a little more needed to be added. Copy edits and fine tuning will start soon, it is a testament to stubborn perseverance or maybe madness on my part for pursuing this article as FA but it is definitely worth the trouble in the end. Your input and assistance has consistently been invaluable in bringing this to it being the best it can be and that can never be understated. Hopefully, your projects are going well on your end, too. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC):[reply]
Delighted to hear. "stubborn perseverance or maybe madness" re FAC is something I know about. Begotten will get there at the end. From my POV, as a FAC reviewer, its a page I want to hold up as a standard of research and how to structure such an article. Quite a few slight pop culture articles slip through because they say but that other crap article was promoted. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed that. The former FA Boogeyman 2 was a huge example of a rushed FA promotion. It is a fine example of poor structuring and sourcing. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Quick question. I feel when I eventually transfer everything into the main space, the development sub-section seems in need of an image to fit into there, though I am not sure what I might use. Any suggestions? Paleface Jack (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Paleface Jack: You could regig some of the images to spread them out, but idealy you would try for another FU image such as File:Begotten,1990 film, screenshot.jpg. Choose a capture from a scene that the article expands upon. Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can do. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look forward :) Consider the image at 5:18 here (God killing himself), especially as the whole "wandering across the barren landscape" motif is hard to explain in words, and the article currently lacks without a visual anchor. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably not use the image of God Killing Himself as that is one of the predominant and most well known image of the film. Wandering the barren landscape is nice, I also love the one of Mother Earth standing by the coffin. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh wow. Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a minor restoration of the image to make it (slightly) more clear. But I always seem to be drawn to that image. I also saw some similarities with the current screenshot and a painting of Danse Macabre and the ending shots of The Seventh Seal. Unfortunately I have yet to find a source that connects them other than this. Paleface Jack (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I did a little modification to both my userspace and the main article. Replaced the main image with that of Mother earth, while in the userspace I have both the original image and the Mother Earth image to show a more complete visual of Begotten's style. Is there a particular one that is better or using both of them round that whole section visually? Paleface Jack (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Pound scheduled for TFA

[edit]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 23 May 2025. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An Irish Horror

[edit]

Just discovered a horror film made by your people. Apparently, it is the first feature-length horror film in the Irish language. Sounds interesting enough.

Paleface Jack (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definatly going to check that out...my American wife loves the Irish language and expanding her vocabulary, although I don't have a clue. Looking for a subtitled copy :) Did you see Oddity, filmed near where we live, also liked Grabbers which we only watched the other night, though its too long and the first half is slow and boring. The second half however is a riot. Ceoil (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't go out much to watch movies as much as I used to. But I have heard of both films. Paleface Jack (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Searching: E. Elias Merhige

[edit]

I have been wanting to use an image of Begotten director Merhige for both his own article and the film article for a while. I have been struggling to find a proper image and how to attribute it properly on here. There is one in particular I have found that was published in the LA Times during the theatrical run of Suspect Zero. While I have found it and all the information to give it proper attributes, the main place where the image resides is on Getty (frustratingly notorious for withholding images for money). I am not sure if I can use it or how I can get around to using it, but the image itself is perfect for matching what I need. Just wondering if you have any advice or if there are other resources I could use to find a better image, Merhige is kinda reclusive when it comes to public appearances and ones that are not captured by free sources. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Completely forgot the link: https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/merhige-cac-director-e-elias-merhige-has-a-movie-coming-out-news-photo/563600801 Paleface Jack (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Getty is inadvisable. Currently at a loss at where and how I am gonna find an image of Merhige.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tips how to write featured article and asking your favour to be my mento

[edit]

As recently, i propose Daniel in the lion's den as FAC and rejected. Most of the reviewer asking me to engage mentor. From what i see, you do write mainly in ART. Do you mind to be my mentor for this article. Thank you Agus Damanik (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agus Damanik, yes will take a look and leave some comments on the talk, although it may be a week or so before I get to it. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OTD

[edit]
story · music · places

Good to see James Joyce on the main page again! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but the current article has almost nothing to do with me...its Wtfiv who did 99% of the hard work :) Ceoil (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stravinsky pictured on his birthday + Vienna pics - but too many who died (Alfred Brendel, will look tomorrow) + I have a "defiant" cantata up for GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and today look at the autograph of Beethoven's last piano sonata and listen to a pianist who wanted to serve the compositions most of all --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Gerda. Appros of nothing, listened to this again more than a few times again earlier today, which I believe you recommended at some stage. Your article work and talk page recommendations are appreciated! Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, - o the beauty of madness, - that was my first opera ever, with Yvonne Ciannella. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As have said before, my playlists on different platforms are happily littered by recommendations from Gerda :) Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I heard this music, yesterday, - streamed a day before at a different location. I had heard of the octobass but never saw or heard one. Monumental. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While you are of course invited to check out my recommendations any day, today offers unusually a great writer of novels, music with light and a place with exquisite food. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Begotten Copyedits

[edit]

I have been slowly tinkering away on the expanded Begotten article. Right now, copy edits are more about finding a more precise style and prose (words that can be simplified to a single word without reducing clarity). Lost a lot of the supplied resources at my disposal to better understand copy editing and precise writing (a slow process to sharpen my metaphorical blades of the trade). It is getting there slowly but surely but still a ways off from relative perfection. The edits and the fun continues within my dark corner of the Void. I wonder if your projects are coming along well. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am impressed. In clean up mode re the romantic goth label 4AD records these days. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. You should look at Crash Worship. They are one of the more interesting things I have listened to. As for Begotten, I am only focusing on what I know I can do. Wording and keeping things flowing is a major point I want to improve. Eventually I will be able to understand this human english prose language. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for ignoring, am very interested and will switch to helping shortly. Am very fond of your article work. Ceoil (talk

I did not think you were ignoring me. No worries.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't like Crash Worship in the two or 3 vids checked out; too earnest, not much to say and very cringe. Maybe the format is not something I get. Never liked "experimental" performative arts anyway - where they are curling around, although I really love dance in almost all its forms. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re the "human english prose language"...noticing significant improvements and hopeful that you will some day assimilate :) Ceoil (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Paleface, I'm really impressed with the revamped article and have high hopes for an eventual FAC. However it now ironically seems overlong and padded out in areas and would recommend some, especially around the screening dates which are extensive and very dry to read, and maybe the last paragraph of what is now "The human condition" could probably go (while retaining the refs) as you've said it already. Overall though, I'm just "trilled" at the progress. As a broad plan, we might try and cut down some repetition while I do simple copy editing, before we—once again but he is our best—call in John for the final polish. Ceoil (talk) 00:::44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Also, I prefer the closing para from about a year ago (edited): "Although largely ignored by mainstream critics, it has since attained cult status and influenced several avant-garde film-makers, visual artists and musicians. The film's scarcity on home video prompted fans to circulate their own bootleg copies. Merhige directed two short film sequels: 2006's Din of Celestial Birds and 2022's Polia & Blastema: A Cosmic Opera." Ceoil (talk)

@Ceoil: I agree that some pieces need to be toned down. My issue would be cinematic style and how to go about retaining information (and sources) of the releases section. I have noticed how some details can be retained and large-scale articles like The Dark Knight are proof it is possible. Sometimes the completionist in me is excessive. I do wish to retain all the sources if I can and trim down what is unnecessary details, maybe not go into depth on time and place with releases and simplify it to year and festival for its later screenings. I am curious how you think it should be tackled?--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that that since the film is under appreciated and only had a long life through specific screenings which lead to word of mouth cult following, you would want to include everyting, but that makes for boring reading for causal readers if it becomes listy; ok for GA, but better to give the gist for FA. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about putting forth The Head Hunter for FA review. It has gone through several copy edits and seems an easy start for a second FA article. Paleface Jack (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's grand, but don't have the bandwith to help on two; getting Begotten to FA is my priority re your articles for now....one step at a time. Ceoil (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re "I am curious how you think it should be tackled?" - wonder if placing some of the stats etc within a 'notes' section might work? That way you keep the info and improve the readability flow. Ceoil (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was contemplating that. Using the notable releases while also stating it had extensive screenings at film festivals and cite the various festivals. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about it the better it seems. The people who are seeking out such info are skilled at finding it, and will probably spend as much –if not more time– scouring the notes as the main text. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. How I will go about tackling it, I am still stuck on (Sentence wise). Paleface Jack (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, sorry this all took so long but read again tonight and think the article has come on a long way and is ready for John to have a hack at. I left some notes on the talk that are relatively minor, but to commend you on "really" great work. I don't have any worries about the breadth of coverage (either too much or too "in the weeds") or the quality of sources. No pass at FAC is an easy pass, but this is in great shape :) I think the article is nearing a stage where when you nom, I'll be comfortable with just declaring support. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize, you have your own (hopefully) successful FA nomination you have been working on. I redid the first paragraph of the theatrical release section though I encountered some mental burnout soon afterwards that have prevented detailed edits. I have been hacking away at a draft for the Begotten Cycle trilogy as a whole which is coming along. An article on the film's director is also being expanded though I am not used to working on articles for filmmakers, so that seems to be an interesting challenge (a Wikipiedia approved photograph of Merhige still remains frustratingly elusive). Paleface Jack (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive and great to hear; it would be great to have the trilogy and director articles in place before the FAC. Ceoil (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The Merhige article expantion is a bit complicated, much like the film. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers

[edit]

Many thanks for your source review at the Mud March. Re your comment here about newspapers, I have access to a few sources through the Wikipedia Library. These came from the British Newspaper Archive and Newspapers.com, both of which are free to use through the Wiki library. It's an excellent resource and worth looking into. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great to see, at times between books and journal articles not on JSTOR....wiki can be a bit expensive. Ceoil (talk) 23:38, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July music

[edit]
story · music · places

If you like Brahms, I recommend the streaming of yesterday's concert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a 2016 TFA in today's story, in memory of 16 July 1916. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning, RD and DYK, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August music

[edit]
story · music · places

The last four stories were about Bach's Mass in B minor (because I heard it), and about three who died, including two women, one of them an artist. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I found today a youtube of an aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sang Dona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Check out my talk for an Independence day, or: the pic of Oksana Lyniv was taken on 24 August. There's listening and reading in today's story, and I like both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, your note led me to [13] so thank you very much, as usual; am now besotted by Symphony No. 9, and its obvious that this will soon be in my top ten. Ceoil (talk) 18:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - On top of my talk: birthday of a great violinist and Requiem for a great friend. We sang Paradisi gloria from the Stabat Mater in the end. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cited directly versus via an intermediary

[edit]

Good work on the article, while I slept. Thank you! But:

What was <ref name="Thicknesse">Philip Thicknesse, ''The Speaking Figure and the Automaton Chess Player, Exposed and Detected'' (London, 1794), quoted in Levitt 2000.</ref> is now {{snf|Thicknesse|1794}}

What was <ref>W. J. Hunneman, ''Chess. A Selection of Fifty Games, from Those Played by the Automaton Chess-Player, During Its Exhibition in London, in 1820'' (1820); quotation taken from Levitt 2000.</ref> is now {{snf|Levitt|2000}}{{snf|Hunneman|1820}}

Have you actually looked into the works by Thicknesse [superb surname!] and Hunneman? If so, good (although it's not immediately obvious that Levitt still merits a mention for the second). But if not (as the lack of a page number for either rather suggests), the article shouldn't give the impression that at least one WP editor has verified that these claims do indeed appear in this pair of two-century-old works.

Unless you're certain that Thicknesse and Hunneman wrote what they're described as writing, these two alterations should be reverted.

(I wouldn't be surprised if one or other of these antiques is available at the Internet Archive for our inspection: I haven't yet looked.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found a cheap 2nd-hand copy of Levitt 2000, but will take around two weeks to get here. Still shopping around for a copy of Tom Standage's book. Ceoil (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My brain hurts

[edit]

I think I've OD'd on the Turk. Time for me to take a break from it. Over to you (if you're free). I'll be back slightly soon, though. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

During the last few days I've left quite a number of comments, questions, etc, on Talk:Mechanical Turk. These haven't yet prompted anyone to comment (even just to suggest that I might STFU). Your input, and of course your editing of Mechanical Turk, would be welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, you can take my silence as agreement...that's how its intended...but will post an "ok" from now so that other/later readers can follow the agreements. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of that comment of yours, Ceoil, it was a moderately svelte 55,849 bytes; but now, a muscular/obese 82,002. I think the transformation has been for the better, but then I'm biased. Nobody at WP:FAR seems interested, one way or another -- for which I suppose we should be grateful, as this "discussion" is grotesque. Anyway, if you have time for another look-through, it would be welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted to revisit and comment Hoary...have been largely following the very impressive/awe-inspiring progress you have made - the article is now far better than when originally nominated. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I sense that it could be improved in a few ways, but that in order to execute any of these competently I'd have to do some serious reading, thinking, drafting and editing. I don't find myself brimming with enthusiasm for that prospect. But even without such improvements, I hope that it's adequate. (Thank you for your year correction: I'm sure that similar minor errors still lurk undetected.) ¶ Congratulations on your article on the three-faced head, which I can't help but imagine in a famous scene near the end of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. ¶ If you happen to be looking for a minor puzzle, may I suggest deorphanifying Reliquary of Pétermonostora.... Hoary (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re "some serious reading, thinking, drafting and editing" - there is no such thing as perfect on this website, and anybody could be sucked into months or years polishing an already really great article...to diminishing returns. I think you have done enough here and should be allowed to spread your wings onto other articles and interests. Its a real pitfall of FAC that it means editors get sucked into minutiae for months trying to achieve a "perfect" article, to the opportunity cost of several other "really good" articles :( Anyhow, my respect and bravo for your contributions overall...have never strayed into editing the photography side of wiki (am a Mary Ellen Mark obsessive), especially the dwarfs), but do see the area is in good hands:) Ceoil (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Corleck Head

[edit]
Congratulations, Ceoil! The article you nominated, Corleck Head, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats on this! I'm happy to see it. Nice work. Victoria (tk) 00:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Thinking about noming it at TFA for next year's Summer solstice; that's not quite what it is but...Ceoil (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would work, or Samhain or one of the on the other quarter festivals - I think that's what they're called. Anyway, well, done. Victoria (tk) 14:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

September music

[edit]
story · music · places

Congratulations! - I have a FAC open, and the source reviewer would like broader coverage. - Today is the birthday of the 16th Thomaskantor after Bach, remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My story today is about the principal violin of the Concentus Musicus; she would have been 95 OTD. I felt connected when the second oboist of our recent concert, of Haydn's Stabat Mater, said that he built an English horn for his performance of the work with the Concentus Musicus. - Concert weekend pictured in "places". - Company, will get back to Bach next week. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring and BRD

[edit]

Ceoil, per BRD your edits to PragerU have been rejected. Restoring the challenged edits goes against BRD. Please take the change to the talk page. Note that while much of what you are changing is minor rephrasing of text, some of the changes are not supported by sources. Springee (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2025 (UTC) Stop icon Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.[reply]

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't approach the three revert rule and its now at talk. IOWs, your warning is out of line and also stale. Ceoil (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you did revert without making any real case at talk. And it's not stale, as it was made shortly after you reverted me. Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Sorry about that! Am editing with the best of intentions, but your dramatic templating of me sort of riled :( I'll give the page a break for a few days and engage again maybe in a week or so....on talk with proposed text. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, funny page break, you have replied a few times since making that statement. Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what. Ceoil (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of Begotten

[edit]

Been hard at work expanding the article on director Merhige. In my research, I have come across some questionable problems for Begotten. It seems that Valnet (the company behind the website Collider, ScreenRant and MovieWeb) is listed as a questionable source on here. Since all of the sources I have used from that have been lists, I am not sure if that would be accepted. Any thoughts? Paleface Jack (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all Valnet-based sources just to be safe. I did find an Oxford-based online film journal called Student Film Journal that may or may not be reliable enough though I am not sure.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Student Film Journal is best avoided I think. Its more properly the The Oxford Student Film Journal yes and they do have editors (although not necessarily editorial oversight/fact checkers), but they say: "however, we acknowledge that we are not perfect, and that this is a constant work-in-progress!". Sounds more like a blog. Ceoil (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thought so. Paleface Jack (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Starting to get a little annoyed, recently there have been consensus' on Wikipiedia that will possibly force me to remove some more information and sources from the Begotten article. Far Out, which has two very nice articles I use may now be considered "Unreliable" due to claims of "churnalism". Its how these things go, though it pains me to even consider removing them from the article.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that a reliable source cited at least one of the Far Out articles. I don't know if that would be a reason I could argue for its inclusion. Paleface Jack (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Paleface, I dont follow - where is Far Out being questioned?

@Ceoil: On here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Though the articles I have used have not done what they have been accused of doing and a reliable and academic souce has used that article in a citation.--Paleface Jack (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then I dont see a problem. Ceoil (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Just wanted to run that by someone. Paleface Jack (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tall Tree and the Eye (September 14)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Absurdum4242 was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
You’ve made an excellent start to this article, but it unfortunately requires a few more independent secondary sources before it can be accepted. The El Mundo article is perfect, but the Guggenheim source is not independent by definition, and the royal academy of arts article only contains a passing mention of THIS piece of art. Hopefully it should be possible to find some more sources, and then I will be delighted to revisit this and accept it. Keep up the good work.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Ceoil! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Absurdum. Ceoil (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an independent source, but it more or less credibly asserts something that your draft doesn't mention: that the thingie you're writing about is but one of a series, the others (so far) being "in Singapore, the South of France and other top secret locations". (Dubai, Qatar? Where's the money these days?) In Singapore: "Tall tree in [sic] the eye". And in Seoul. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It werent my article, more was trying to encourage the new editor Hitsuji777 who is both into Goya and Francis Bacon, so somebody want to have around. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Unfortunately the Spanish article about it doesn't cite additional sources. Perhaps there's something here. And there's a bare mention, but I think a usable one, within this. Slim pickings, it must be said. -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do intend on returning to it....see sandbox, but am a biteen over-comitted atm :( Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But thanks, those refs are very helpful. Ceoil (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of you today....no, no, not like that!

[edit]

So there I was, just checking out what was coming in on my YouTube feed...and one of the songs that popped up is apparently the 19th most successful single in Ireland. And...it has a great video. Filmed on July 4, 2004, in their home town of Buffalo, NY. Enjoy.[14] Risker (talk) 06:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness. We talked about the person for whom this song is named two and a half years ago on my talk page. No wonder you came to mind when I heard the song. Risker (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to pick up on this thread again Risker; will go you one more approaching the atmosphere of that song, which stirs up =the same wanton stuff as the Goo Goo Dolls vid....[15]. I was only really aware of songs here and there from Ronstadt and the McGarrigles until our conversations, after which they really hit. Heart Like A Wheel is now in my top 15 and have since gone way back into Emmylou Harris' earlier albums...to the benefit of my love of music, but the detriment of my exposure to the harsh and raw realities of life :) ps, this is very raw alt country [16] Also [17]. Here[18] is a different type of music but with a similar feel[19]. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great picks, Ceoil! Thank you for sharing. As an aside, "Iris" was written for the movie City of Angels, which is about an angel who becomes mortal when he falls in love with a woman. The song plays while the "fallen angel" is embarking on his search for the woman on a rainy and stormy night. The parallel is moving. I later saw an interview with the band about that specific performance. Buffalo is a very old city and it has what is called "combined" sewers: both the household and the storm drains feed into a single sewer. It was raining so hard that it was compressing all the air in the sewer pipes, and concentrating the natural buildup of methane gas. When the gas had a chance to escape, under maintenance covers, it was blowing them right out and causing mini-explosions. Luckily, there were none near where the crowd was gathering. On the other hand, they were genuinely worried that they could electrocute the stage or even the crowd with all the early-2000s wiring. They also reveal that the OG HD cameras started to give up the ghost during the filming, and there are a fair number of edits using old-school VHS recorders from the wings. Best part of that video? Not a mobile camera in sight, just a crowd really into the music. Risker (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As you might have guessed I enjoy these conversations because I get exposure to different tastes to music. re VHS, hav so many cassettes in the attic have been thinking about to upload to utube but hve been too preoccupied with wiki instead. City of Angels looks great; dont tell the mrs but am of an age where Meg Ryan is, ahem, "pleasing on the eye". Not so sure about Nicolas Cage, he was great back in the day, but only really liked The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent of his recent films, which is truly great and almost had me choking in laughter. But always love rom-coms, Paul Rudd, Sandra Bullock especially. Talk later. Ceoil (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goya's attributions

[edit]

Hi there User:Ceoil. I noticed that on 14 June, you reverted the section I had added on Attribution for List of Works by Francisco de Goya. I believe this topic is important, since the issue of Goya's attribution is particularly complex, with many fakes, copies and works “in the style of Goya” mixed up with genuine works. This can be misleading and confusing for readers wanting to learn more about Goya’s oeuvre. Could you please let me know what concerns you had with that section, so I can work on improving it to meet Wikipedia’s standards? Thank you and best wishes. PFayosP (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PFayosP, I think, looking now, that my reversal was in error and will revert. Sorry abut that :( Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Ceoil. Great, many thanks for letting me know. Just one question: you reverted the initial paragraph about the attribution, but not the column for "Attribution" I added for every artwork? Thank you in advance. PFayosP (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
change as you want PF Ceoil (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited It'll End in Tears, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cassette.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good on ya

[edit]
You so happen to be from the same nation as me!
The second I saw ceoil I knew youd a like music (pretty obviously) and b be Irish Rupert likes music (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]