Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:50, 21 March 2013

Gangbangers

Because the page looks abandoned after archiving. Nishidani (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I can never bear the emptiness. I always feel I need to leave a couple of threads behind or the black hole will swallow all of Misplaced Pages. Paul B (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tom. Just 1 hour into the 2nd presidential debate, did Obama say he was going to go after immigrant 'gangbangers'?Nishidani (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess you don't watch too many US cop shows. It's what The Bash Street Kids get to have with mash. Paul B (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bejaysus! (Hope Zbrnajsem's not peepen) Same difference. mash. I doubt ya need a link for the variety of banger called a Strasburg sausage!--Nishidani (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not? I´m quite eager to learn more English words or internet abbreviations. During my young years, I used to learn 10 English words per day from my ... - English dictionary. And now I am able to read TIME Magazine (and others) and to listen to the two cops. There is still no new Rasmussen Report after the debate, I suppose. Go ahead with your interesting semi-private conversation. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC) --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@Nishi & Paul B: lol Knitwitted (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Mytens

According to Christie's, the painting has been "historically identified" as the 15th earl, which just means that someone attached that name to it at some point in history. Its recent sales have been as portrait of an unknown male in the style of Mytens. Obviously, it's highly unlikely to be the man himself. The lot description of the most recent sale (14 Dec 2010) is:

MANNER OF DANIEL MYTENS Portrait of a gentleman, historically identified as John de Vere, 15th Earl of Oxford (c.1490-1540), three-quarter-length, holding a cane with identifying inscription 'John Vere Fifteenth Earl of Oxford/Lord ...of England/Gibson pinxit' (lower left) oil on canvas 49¾ x 41¼ in. (126.5 x 105 cm.)

"Gibson" may, I guess, be a reference to the 18th century copyist Thomas Gibson.

Paul B (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The "Lord ...of England" signifies that part of the inscription is damaged. Having looked at the more detailed file on the Christies website, I think the missing word was probably "chamberlain". It could be Henry de Vere, 18th Earl of Oxford. "Gibson" might be Richard Gibson (1615-90) rather than the 18th century one. Paul B (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It must have been added later. The inscription does say "John Vere Fifteenth Earl of Oxford", but it may be a slip-up by the inscriber (possibly replacing an earlier faded or damaged inscription). A bit more research has revealed that Richard Gibson, a dwarf page, who was also an artist, was described as "little Dick, my lord Chamberlain's page". I'm not sure whether that means he was page to Henry when he was Lord Great Chamberlain, but it would explain the attribution to him if that's the case (though stylistically it does not look like his work). Paul B (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

It seems that Gibson was page to Philip Herbert, L.C., not Henry de Vere L.G.C. Still, they both wave white sticks. I've created a page on Richard Gibson (painter). Paul B (talk) 13:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Oxford and Elizabeth

The supposed Lord Great Chamberlain engraving looks 16th-17th century in style, but I don't know where it comes from originally. It's semi-emblematic in character so it's certainly unlikely to be a "portrait" in any realistic sense. I'll have a look at some books on images of Elizabeth. Paul B (talk) 18:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

From what I can gather the engraving is an adaptation by Hollar of a print by Marcus Gheeraerts the Elder depicting a ceremonial procession of the Knights of the Garter. There is a photo of the original on the NPG website (also in colour here). The original engraving is on nine sheets. The Bridgeman art library has images of several sheets . Paul B (talk) 13:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Pennington's Descriptive Catalogue of the Etched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar (p. 93) has an entry on the Hollar version of the design. No mention is made of Oxford. Roy Strong has this to say about the 1576 ceremony, which is the one depicted: "Elizabeth appeared arrayed in her garter robes and wearing a diadem of pearls upon her head, the sword of state borne before her by the Earl of Hertford, her mantle supported by the Earl of Northumberland and the Lord Russell, and her train carried by the Countess of Hertford assisted by the Earl of Oxford." (The Cult of Elizabeth: Elizabethan Portraiture and Pageantry, p. 168) If this is accurate, I guess the image should go in the article dedicated to Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford. Paul B (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't read the caption in the images online, and the one book I've got immediate access to is even fuzzier. I will be going down to London soon, so I'll look in ther British library for more detailed images - or maybe even have a look at the original prints in the BM. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Easier to sneak snaps with mobile phones these days. They can be sniffy about cameras. Paul B (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I added some information on attribution and changed one of the categories, but I sure didn't rename it. Wouldn't know how. Paul B (talk) 20:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be still there . Maybe it just went for a walk. Paul B (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Request that topic ban be lifted

Hi Tom,

I've made a request that the topic ban be lifted . I hope I can count on your support. NinaGreen (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you an administrator?

My polite question to you, Mr. Reedy, is expressed above. Are you an administrator for Misplaced Pages? If not, for whom do you act in my case? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That question shows there is a need to learn a lot more about Misplaced Pages before engaging in topics covered by discretionary sanctions (WP:ARBSAQ). The message posted at User talk:Zbrnajsem#Second notice--please comply with Misplaced Pages policy is standard for Misplaced Pages—sometimes an administrator leaves a message like that, but more often it is done by a non-admin editor. I recommend focusing more on the topic (Oxford), and less on other editors. In particular, a lot of your efforts on talk pages are wasted—just talk about the topic and whether particular text is warranted. Questions regarding how to matters can be asked at WP:HELPDESK. One way to check admin status is to view the contributions of an editor, then click "User rights" in the box at the bottom. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tom!

I sincerely hope you'll write a bio of Oxford based on what his contemporaries' biographers wrote about him. I think *that* would be an interesting read and I think whole-heartedly you would do an excellent job. Best, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

without wishing to ply the needle too savagely, Twitknitted, why should a biography of de Vere, or anyone else, be sourced to what biographers of his contemporaries say (en passant?) about him? Like writing a biography of Shakespeare according to what biographers of Essex, Leicester, Queen Elizabeth 1, Raleigh, Spenser, Donne, Burghley, Marlowe, Jonson, etc.etc., happen to say about him. I think you have your grammatical knickers in a twist.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Say Squishidani, wouldn't it be interesting to read about the Ox as set against his contemporaries instead of in a Hoover vortex? BTW... I wasn't suggesting Tom write the bio for Misplaced Pages. I think he's capable of publishing his work in the real world of soybean ink. Enjoy your moment of blowing sunshine! Knitwitted (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard Nixon talk page notice

I have added a section on the talk page for the article Richard Nixon titled "Section deleted on 13 December 2012." Please share your thoughts on the talk page. Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Scanning

It depends what scanners you use and the software, of course. What type of dots are they? We have very high quality ones here at the uni, which I can access. BTW, I've redone the version of the Ashbourne portrait to get rid of that milky line of ectoplasm above the head on the right, but I haven't uploaded it yet. I was not sure whether that came from some sort of print fault or the scanning process. Shall I replasce the file? Paul B (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Corbett

I've just sent you an email. I don't know if he's notable, but the article has been around for a while without being targeted for deletion, despite the weird title. One of the regular editors looks likely to to be Corbett himself. For a long while it emphasised his status as a cult anarcho-punk figure. This seems to be true, but the only sources I could find were Punk fan websites and YouTube (I have a soft spot for punk, but I won't be looking for Apostles albums if the stuff on YouTube is typical). The editor-who-may-be-Corbett then deleted all the Punk stuff, since he seems now to be promoting himself as a gentleman-scholar rather than an anarchist nihilist! As for his career as a photographer, I've no idea how significant he is in that field.

Of course that's all separate from the question of Lewes Lewknor's presence on the list. The book certainly exists and the author of a book does not have to be notable for the candidate to be listed. The Anne Whateley advocates are very obscure persons, as are many of the other originators of new candidates. Of course I know that we should have at least notification of the claims by an RS. I admit I couldn't find one. The book's only just been published, but someone (who I wonder?) has splashed stuff about it all over the web. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well in any case I'm not gonna nominate it for deletion--it takes too much time and I'm sure somebody will get around to it someday. I don't like setting a precedent for including non-RS sources in the list, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Howdy

Hope this helps :) Best, Knitwitted Knitwitted (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Am curious Tom. Why is it that whenever I post a comment directed to you your minions feel the need to come to your rescue? Just curious why you are not capable of forming your own response. Best, Knitwitted (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom, can I be your minion? I have always wanted to be a minion! I have a lot of experience as a henchman, and I think it is time to move up... --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ROFL Knitwitted (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Tom, I very much appreciate your very fine work on Bob's new page. It looks really good!!! I am hoping he will write you a very nice thank-you letter. Otherwise, I hope my thanks will be reward enough for being my henchman. Furthermore, my attorney has advised me to take under advisement your request to be my minion per your minion Paul which said acceptance would subminionate your minion's position. Please advise Paul of his impending demotion. Many thank yous again!!! Best wishes, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Cushion heaven

Wow, that certainly is a cornucopia of cushions. Of course they could all be grain merchants who did a bit of theology on the side. I'm also distressed to read that one of the Barlows was destroyed by "rabid fanatics". An ill omen. It's a pity I haven't been able to find a detailed published discussion of this sculptural convention. It would be good to have a section on it in the article. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. At least not in detail. One of my old tutors Nigel Llewellyn wrote about early modern funeral imagery, but there's no reference to the cushion torsos in his Art of Death. Scuplture is really rather neglected by art historians. There's the comprehensive series of books on public sculptures created by the Public Monuments and Sculpture Association, but I'm pretty sure that funerary monuments are not normally included as 'public' works. Peter Sherlock's Monuments and Memory in Early Modern England is more interested in epitaphs and theology than iconography. I'm pretty sure there's no mention of cushioned torsos. Paul B (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Earl of Oxford's Men, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Henry VII, Tumbler and Thomas Dekker (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King's Men (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Art critic?

Barrell was an "art critic"? If this is a reference to essay on the Ashbourne, I'd hesitate to call that art criticism, since it was not about evaluating it in any meaningful way. Or did he write some reviews of Picasso shows? Paul B (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Barrell was quite a prolific writer from around 1908 until he became a film producer and then after. He was a prominent socialist and also a conservationist. He wrote several articles about art and artists, and I found several references to him as an art critic. The WP article about him could be much longer if someone took the time to trawl Goggle. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I did try that once, but came up with nothing. Did you bjust do a straight search or find this material using a more sophisticated approach? Paul B (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I Googled his full name in quotes on the wed, Goggle books, and images. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Howdy!

Congrats on your recent article "Oxford's Men"... very nice research!

Is there any chance you would provide cites to Fripp and Groves (or anyone else) which shows how Shax used the Tomson N.T.? I'd like to correct my essay to reflect the facts. Thanks very much for your help! Best, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Knitwitted, I'm not going to take the time to research an off-handed comment. All I know is that Fripp said it, and I'm sure his research is documented somewhere, since he was an ordained divine with a religious education that I doubt anyone now alive can match. You'll just have to do it yourself. I know his papers on archived at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford. You might want to e-mail them as to what their holdings are; I've always found them to be very helpful. The Oxford's Men article is nowhere near complete. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Tom, I certainly wasn't asking you to conduct research. I just thought you might have already done so and ascertained the validity of Fripp's/Grove's statements before posting said statements. Thank you for your suggestions for further resources... much appreciated!! :) re Oxford's Men... Perhaps as you say "nowhere near complete" but certainly a great beginning... Best with your research, Knit Knitwitted (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ward

Do I take it that you have answered your own question, since you have now added an image from the Folger website? I'm impressed that you found that image. I find negotiating the Folger website painfully confusing. Paul B (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I found a reference in Schoenbaum for one image. If I had folio numbers for the others I could get them, but I suppose one image is enough. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be nice to know exactly where the others are. The Severn book appears to group the entries thematically, and it only includes the "interesting" ones - or what Severn considers to be the interesting ones. It's referred to as a "diary", but it really just appears to be notes and comments written over the years, most of which are not definitively dateable. At least that's the impression I get from the literature and the Folger facimilies. Still, I'd like to be able to find out exactly how the various comments are grouped and whether there is any context for them. Your photo reveals that one comment follows directly from one of the others. But the secondary literature often groups them in different ways. Paul B (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still trawling through the internets looking for references. I found some Ward information in this book beginning on 298. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Found them. Schoenbaum sent me to chambers, and Chambers sent me to Munro. I'll have them all up in a little while. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Tom Reedy. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Characterization of Edward de Vere

This is a reminder for you, Mr. Tom Reedy, on your talk page. Somewhere in the discussion on Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford you wrote about him: "...the personality characteristics that made him such a shit." Really, do you think this wording was appropriate? I am upset about your wording. I don´t agree with many points of your reasoning about this person of history. It is cherrypicking in your way, what you do. You don´t see all of possible achievements and better actions of Edward de Vere, you see only those possibly negative ones. Could you explain to me how do you come to it? And how do you come to delete two contributions of some other person to a talk page (my contributions to this talk page)? This was a matter of the page concerned, the page on Edward de Vere, and of your attitude to this very person of history. Besides this, please take into consideration that a substantial part of European public holds Edward de Vere for the true author of the Shakespearean canon. This substantial part of the European public is also convinced that Will Shakspere of Stratford was not the true author of this vast work, that he completely lacked the abilities necessary for this work. I have already pointed out to you that there is a documentary film with the title "The Naked Shakespeare" that says precisely this about Will Shakespere. In this film, even the name "William Shakespeare" was not attributed to this person of history. The said documentary film was transmitted for broad German and French public on the TV channel Arte on 17 March 2013 and again on 21 March 2013. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

@Zbrnajsem: Thanks for raising this here, and for removing your comment from Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Why not ask Tom what information he had in mind when he commented on Oxford's military service, treatment of his wife and mistress, and personality characteristics? I trust you would agree that a biographical article concerning Oxford should provide due coverage of his military service, and of any personal issues that reliable secondary sources have judged to be sufficiently significant to cover? Tom is certainly correct in suggesting that the article is a biography, and more issues than Shakespeare's authorship need to be treated. Your comment on the article talk page was removed because it was off topic (it seemed to be a complaint about an editor), and because your comment distracted from the topic at hand, where Tom had just explained certain points in some detail. Following such a comment with a complaint about one word is unfortunate because it avoids any engagement with the thread, and instead makes the page unusable as a medium for discussing the article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The wording was appropriate because one definition of "shit" is "A mean or contemptible person," which is the sense I intended. Even most Oxfordians agree that he was such a person when it came to his personal relations.

I don't argue authorship on Misplaced Pages, so giving me all the reasons why you hold a fringe theory dear is useless. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)