User talk:Choliamb

Hello Choliamb! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Ingratis (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Hope you don't mind the above - better late than never. Ingratis (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your work on Isova - good to have, and I learnt a lot from it. I should mention that there's a huge focus on Wikipedia presently on removing content lacking inline citations, quite often (to be frank) well beyond common sense. If you could add one or two more inline references to the paragraph on St Nicolas, that should avoid any potential difficulties. Best wishes, Ingratis (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ingratis. Thanks for this. I'm not interested in spending too much time and effort on Wikipedia, for a number of reasons, but occasionally when I see a hole in an obscure area of coverage I will try to fill it, if I can do so quickly and easily. In this case, it was a site that I knew about and I was already familiar with the sources, so it didn't take long.

In the two paragraphs on Notre Dame and Saint Nicolas, I tried to indicate that all of the architectural description was based on the four sources listed in the first note in each paragraph (Traquair, Mitsopoulos, Bon, and Pangopoulos). That seemed more economical than providing one note for the dimensions, another for the plan, another for the windows, etc., especially since I would just be citing the same sources every single time. As far as I know, these four publications are the only independent architectural descriptions of the buildings. I'm not aware of any other discussion in the last 40 years, in guidebooks and other general works, that is not entirely derivative of one or more of them. Because the sources are fully cited and the relevant page numbers given, and all four of them are available online for free, without paywalls, anyone who wants to can go back and pull out individual page numbers for each element that I describe. I certainly don't mind if someone wants to do that and replace my single cumulative note with a series of separate notes on individual sentences. But it's not something that I'm particularly eager to do myself. I've made my contribution, such as it is, and I don't have the time or the interest to do a lot more. That said, I appreciate what you and other more dedicated editors are trying to accomplish here, and I'd hate to see the information I provided removed on a technicality, so I'll try to spend a few minutes on it this weekend and see if I can strip out one or two separate references for the St. Nicolas paragraph. It can probably be done easily enough for the sentences on the western rather than Orthodox character of the worship and the uncertain date. In any case, many thanks for the positive feedback. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your understanding. If you're not able to get to it I'll add the book refs again as above at the end of the para, which should be more than enough to fend off drive-by deletes. Wikipedia is sometimes extremely good at shooting itself in its foot, and we seem to be passing through an unusually literal-minded rules-driven phase which often backfires. All best, Ingratis (talk) 08:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ingratis: OK, I've revised the descriptions and added a few more citations (in the paragraph on Notre Dame as well as that on Saint Nicolas). It's both more informative and more accurate now. Have a look and see what you think. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful - a standard to aspire to! It reads really nicely and clearly, and I think (hope) the refs are now idiot-proofed. Many thanks for all your trouble. All best, Ingratis (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term was coined by a Norwegian "duckist", Jon Gisle, who wrote a book called "Donaldismen", which I read in 1974. I don't think it has been translated into English, but Google found a German translation when I checked. Best regards from a Finnish animator (retired) --Janke | Talk 21:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ps: Check out Donaldism...

Thanks, Janke. Very pleased to meet you. I didn't know that Scandinavia was such a thriving center of international Donaldwissenschaften. Is there something about him that northern Europeans find particularly attractive? Here in the US, he doesn't get much respect any more: many casual fans of classic cartoons focus chiefly on Warner Bros and dismiss all things Disney as sentimental fluff, while contemporary Disney fans are more likely to be interested in The Little Mermaid and Frozen than the early features and shorts. It's a real shame, considering how technically gorgeous the work of the Disney studio was from the mid-30s to the mid-40s, and how funny some of the Donald cartoons from that period are. But I don't need to tell you that! Before you retired, did you do most of your animating by hand, or with a computer? Choliamb (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Capita, Finland is the top Disney-comics reading nation in the world! Aku Ankka was first published in December 1951, and in 2013 it rose to the most sold/subscribed magazine! Myself, I regard Barks' duck from 1949-1954 as the best. As you, I definitely don't care for the 60s version! Yes, I animated mostly by hand, but in the 1980s and 90s I did some computer animation, too. Here are some samples of the styles I used (mostly specified by the client): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C61comiFqWA Best, --Janke | Talk 08:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a range of styles, Janke. Impressive. And I'm happy to know about Aku Ankka, although to American ears it sounds like the name of a Tiki cocktail, like the Aku Aku Lapu, which was named after the Aku Aku restaurant in the Stardust Hotel in Las Vegas, which was in turn named after the Aku Aku spirits of Easter Island. You can chalk this up to my very poor knowledge of Finnish and Finland, which is sadly limited to Sibelius and the Kalevala. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you perchance notice the link on the Aku Ankka page: The Quest for Kalevala? There' a strong mix for you! PS: Found it in entirety with a search: [1] Janke | Talk 17:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I read it last night. Not at all what I expected from a Donald Duck comic book! Got to give Rosa credit for going all in on the mythology. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggets you look at the top frame of Rosa's page 20, and compare it with this Gallen-Kallela painting: The_Defense_of_the_Sampo ... --Janke | Talk 17:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A nice easter egg for Finnish readers. Gallen-Kallela seems like an interesting fellow. The work in Kenya and New Mexico gives him more range (both geographic and stylistic) than one would expect from an artist chiefly associated with nationalist subjects. Choliamb (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's an icon in Finnish art. I live just a few minute's walk from the Gallen-Kallela Museum, so I've seen quite a lot of his paintings... Janke | Talk 09:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for cracking eggs: Momma wolf and daddy wolf never had egg cups, so I was deprived of that knowledge during childhood... We usually ate chickens whole and uncooked, and didn't bother with eggs. Now I know what the expression means, though! David10244 (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@David10244: Unlike eggs, I don't think there are any strong doctrinal disputes over which is the proper end for cracking open a chicken. You're free to start at the head or the tail or anywhere in between without raising any eyebrows.

Re eggs: if you've never read it, the fourth chapter of Gulliver's Travels is the locus classicus.

Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will look at that. David10244 (talk) 04:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All true believers should break their eggs at the convenient end, right? And that end should be left up to personal conscience... David10244 (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your corrections to The Exaltation of the Flower. They are much appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your gracious assistance is requested on Lovatelli urn, particularly with the dates. Could you also verify the dating of the object? Thank you in advance. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Viriditas. Thanks for the barnstar. I've replied to your questions about the date of the Lovatelli urn on the article's talk page. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just put Beulé Gate up for peer review here, with a view to taking it forward to FAC at some point in the future. Would be most grateful for your eyes on the article and your suggestions, if you have the opportunity. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 11:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to, although my time will be limited now that the holidays are over. I have a long manuscript (not mine!) on the LH pottery from Lerna to copyedit, and a health problem that I hope will turn out to be minor but could be something more serious (CAT scan of the head on Friday, keep your fingers crossed). But I will give it a look when I need some diversion. Knowing you, I'm sure it's in great shape already. Choliamb (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated -- good luck with all of that (will be keeping my fingers very much crossed). Likewise on the relatively limited time, so please don't feel that there's any rush. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: OK, it took a while, for which I apologize, but I finally had a chance to look over the Beulé Gate article. I've let loose my usual torrent of carping and nitpicking on the peer review page. Choliamb (talk) 23:04, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]