User talk:Mzilikazi1939/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

References and external links

Hi. Thanks for your questions.

The reliable sources policy states that self-published sources may not be used as sources. This includes most personal blogs. The only exception is if the blog owner is a recognized and published expert writing in the field of their recognized expertise, and even this exception does not apply to articles about living people (not the case here, but you need to know it).

Our external linking policy also prohibits linking to blogs, discussion groups, forums, mailing lists, and social networking sites. There are some exceptions for non-personal blogs with an editorial staff and for the personal blogs of living people on their own articles. Also, if a living person does not have an official personal website, then the most robust and contentful of their social networking sites may be linked from their articles.

One extremely strict rule is that we may never link to anything copyrighted that is not provided by the copyright holder. I happen to be a fair amateur expert in copyright law. In general, anything published in the US since 1923 (inclusive) is protected by copyright. There are a few exceptions from during the period that the copyright had to be renewed after 28 years. Some publishers had gone out of business or just plain forgot to renew the copyright, and the work fell into the public domain. However, the burden to show that this is the case falls on the editor wanting to include the link. For material published outside the US, it's best to assume the work is protected for 70 years after the death of the author or last collaborator.

I'm not sure which link you think I removed that was uploaded by the copyright holder. I kept the Johnny Cash link because it was clearly uploaded by his estate. Was there another one I took out that you think was uploaded by the copyright owner? Please let me know which one if you'd like me to explain.

YouTube is especially problematic. Not only the soundtrack has to be in the public domain. If the creator of the video has a slideshow, every single one of the images in the slideshow must be in the public domain. This is a legal matter, as Wikipedia can be sued for contributory copyright infringement for these links, and editors get blocked for repeatedly linking to or uploading copyrighted material to prevent this.

This is an encyclopedia. Footnotes are supposed to be citations to references which support the stated facts. We are not supposed to be externally linking in footnotes except for this purpose. Footnotes are not intended for "oh go see or listen to this interesting thing".

Now, to be helpful, for photos of artwork clearly in the public domain (like from the 1800s and before), you can simply take the image from the blog or other unreliable source where you found it an upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. A little box can be put in the external links section which will link to all the media in a particular category. I believe there is one in this article. You have to be careful with paintings from 1900 on. Copyright didn't start when the painting was painted. It started when the painting was first published in a book, journal, magazine, or newspaper. Not all paintings get published, those that do may not get published right away, so you have to try to find the first publication and ensure it was before 1923.

Hope this helps. Yworo (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. In most cases, footnotes do not include any explanatory text, but are rather simply a full citation, preferably with page number and ISBNs for books. Take a look at the {{cite book}} template for example. We need authors name (last=, first=), title, publisher, year of publication, ISBN, and page number(s). For featured articles, the location of the publisher has to be included. Same for journals ({{cite journal}}}, we need the article title, the name of the journal, the ISSN, etc. For web pages ({{cite web}}), sometimes there is no author, but we still need the page title, the name of the work (sometimes the title of the site, sometimes the domain name), the publisher (usually found in the copyright notice at the bottom of the page or on the site's "About" page. If there is a date on a news item ({{cite news}}) or other article ({{cite article}}) then it should be included, but for things that aren't article there usually isn't one. If the author's name is included, it should be cited... Yworo (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

P.P.S. For music, it is not sufficient that the song be in the public domain. The specific performance of the song must be in the public domain. So say a song is written and published as sheet music in 1920, but the specific recording was first pressed in 1933. We can't link to that performance of the song, but we could link to a performance recorded and published in 1922. Yworo (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yet one more thing. We can't link to commercial sites. Specifically, we can't point to a page that sells an item to illustrate the item. If there is a "buy" link anywhere on the page, it's out. Yworo (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining, Yworo. Our priorities are different, and I would particularly part company with you over artwork used to further an argument or as the basis of an interpretation that supports the thesis advanced in an article. In these cases, I would personally rather see the work than take some 'expert's' published word for it. In the world of scholarship all sorts of theses are advanced that are not necessarily accepted by others in the field, so a printed source may only be evidence of an opinion, not of proven fact. Anyway, in the case of a picture, I would argue that there is a difference between a blog's commentary on it and the work itself. If the blog is the only online source for the picture in question, then it must be legitimate to send a reader to that source (always providing the picture is in copyright), since what is illustrated exists apart from the blog. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that the content of personal blogs is not controlled. They may contain copyright violations, as well as defamation and libel. These are the reasons we don't link to personal blogs, discussion groups, forums, mailing lists, and other sites where users may freely contribute content. Even if they don't at the time you view them, such content could be added at any time. It is not just about reliability. These guidelines were not written by me, they have been put into place by the consensus of Wikipedia editors. Yworo (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just in the last fortnight we've had a legal dispute in the UK. An atheist, supported by the Secular Society, took a town council to court over the issue whether prayers at the start of their meetings was legal. The judgement was that they were not, since there is nothing in the law that stated that prayers are part of legitimate council business. The Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government sent round a furious letter afterwards saying that this was a mistaken interpretation that went beyond the original intention of the law and that he would make sure there was a clarificatory amendment. I cite this as a precedent on the use of blogs for the purpose I am suggesting, since in many cases it is possible to link to the illustration alone without having to read the actual text. I appreciate that the guidelines weren't written by you, but if you are a director you are well placed to reopen the question on a consequence not previously foreseen. Can you assure me that you have the authority that your actions seem to imply? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Aesop

We had an edit conflict just now. I left the same edit summar I was planning to use, but removed Greek (I was going to remove African). The lead shouldn't make any claims as to where he was from, given this quote I found and the article itself "the place of Aesop's birth was and still is disputed: Thrace, Phrygia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Samos, Athens, Sardis and Amorium all claimed the honour." Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! I take Greek to refer to his ethnicity, wherever he was born. I'm rushing to meet a deadline before leaving Taiwan. Sorry I can't stop to chat. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Aesop

I was posting as an editor, not an Administrator. My word is not law on this I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Niger timbre.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Niger timbre.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there. I thought I had sorted this a long while ago. If you look at the text under Summary at File:Niger timbre.jpg you will see what I wrote on the form, following the guidelines then. Is there something missing there? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

Mzilikazi, your actions at Aesop's Fables and Aesop are obvious examples of edit warring and you're being very disruptive to the encyclopaedia. Cut out the stupid attempts at personal attacks; I've got no patience for your lies and BS. Edit summaries are not supposed to be a platform to insult or lie about me or any other editor. I fully explained how your actions broke the rules and now you're just trying to ram through your illegal changes while ignoring the discussion.

Nevertheless, I'll repeat it for the benefit of page stalkers. In Aesop's Fables, you arbitrarily changed the article from BC to BCE with no discussion then you went to Aesop and announced to everyone that you were changing the format there as well because you got away with it elsewhere and anyone who disagrees with you should get lost because you're a regular editor and they're not. Ever since then, you've just been instantly reverting anyone who noticed your rule breach. I've never seen such a blatant violation of WP:OWN. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC))

After two warnings, WP Editor 2011's conduct has been reported to the administrators. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is blatant canvassing. See WP:CAN. The fact that you refer to your own actions as "tak[ing] up the cudgels" is yet more proof that you're edit warring rather than paying attention to the rules or discussion. You also didn't deny bullying the other editors like User:Nikopolis1912 to enforce your preference; instead you tried to justify doing so. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC))

I see your secret complaint to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring failed. I hope you'll finally call it quits on your year-long edit war now. You were wrong and the articles weren't yours. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Saying that you're allowed to bully other editors to enforce your arbitrary, unjustified edits because they don't have usernames or they're not as fond of the children's stories as you are is ridiculous. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

Help

I attempted to report User:WP Editor 2011 (who has been blocked for such behaviour before) for edit-warring - probably ineptly. I am told the request was turned down but cannot find it myself. Could you please

1. Send me a direction so I can see the decision and grounds for it myself and
2. If it was turned down for faulty reporting, let me know what I should have done.

Thanks Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mzilikazi, I don't know what you class as "such behaviour", but the only time I was blocked was when a rogue administrator, User:EncycloPetey, abused his powers to fight an editorial dispute against me. Another administrator reverted this unjustified block almost instantly and EncycloPetey was told off for it. Furthermore, he lost the edit war that he started. Referring to that incident in an attempt to discredit me is not your usual style of flat-out lying, but it is deliberately misleading. You started an edit war and you lost; just take it like a man and stop trying to impose your will on Aesop and Aesop's Fables. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

• Your report was here. It was incorrectly formatted and was archived after a few days with no responses. As for what you should have done, I'd say you should have engaged in discussion on the relevant article talk pages regarding the disputed content and waited for a consensus, rather than engage in an edit war that could have ended with blocks all round - and then follow the steps at WP:DRN if that did not achieve a solution. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, I meant the steps at WP:DR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mzilikazi, we all see your edit war was about one issue. If you end your edit war by agreeing to stop trying to impose CE/BCE on Aesop and Aesop's Fables then I'll leave you alone to edit your articles without me. How does that sound? (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

WP Editor 2011, since you have 4 editors disagreeing with you, maybe you should not be expecting Mzilikazi to give up a good faith attempt. You have changed the era at Apollo so that it no longer reflect how it started or how it was for years, all on the basis of one editor who obviously doesn't like it for religious reasons. I've responded at Talk:Apollo#Traditional year numbering]]. Dougweller (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, it wasn't good faith at all; it was a year-long edit war that he justified by his fellow editors "not being regular editors". I am confident that this year-long edit war broke the rules, so I'm not bothered by your misinterpretation of his actions, even if there are four of you. Editors aren't allowed to break rules just because their canvassed friends vote for them. When Mzilikazi finally revealed the reason for his edit war, he made up a bizarre, illogical conspiracy theory about how the civilised world is bullying him into adherence to Standard English against his will. The Apollo issue is irrelevant and unrelated, so please don't extend this debacle any longer by completely changing the topic. I already said I didn't want to waste time with the hypothetical issue you were talking about on Nikopolis' talk page. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

To me, the offer made above looks more like a threat. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So I'm threatening you with staying away from two articles that you claim as yours? I assumed that's what you wanted. I'm just trying to stop your edit war; don't feel threatened if I misunderstand what you want. After all, you haven't made yourself easy to understand. You shouldn't be edit warring anyway, even if I do no favours for you. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC))

May you be well and happy. I should have wished you that ages ago. I apologise. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of unreliable sources

You recently used Mashpedia and a Blogspot blog as sources on The Song of Hiawatha. Neither of these sources are considered reliable and I have reverted your changes. Please review our reliable sources guidelines. You appear to have used a number of other unreliable sources on this article. Yworo (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you may be starting an edit war, Yworo. So far as I can see, you're only an editor, like myself. And if you go over to this talk page and look at the relevant discussion on the associated guide-lines proceeding at the moment, you'll see that this is all they are: guide-lines, not rules. I told you before that the illustration on the blog is the only available example of a picture in a public institution and that, since it is discussed in the text, there should be access to it. I therefore do not take kindly to your officious interference and will ask you to discuss it in future on the talk page. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The use of reliable sources is required by the verifiability policy. If an image is out of copyright and is in the public domain, then it may be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. If it is not in the public domain because it is still under copyright, then we may not link to it on blogspot or anywhere else other than a site which belongs to or has been authorized by the copyright holder, as that constitutes contributory copyright infringement and is specifically prohibited by our external linking policy. Wikipedia can be sued for linking to copyrighted material unless it is provided by the copyright holder. The same applies to song lyrics. We may not link to song lyrics on most lyrics sites, because the lyrics are posted without permission of the copyright holder. So, upload images in the public domain to the Commons, don't link to images or lyrics that may still be protected by copyright. And everyone is "only an editor". Admins have no special rights for enforcing rules, they just have special tools. It is the responsibility of every editor to ensure to the best of their ability that we comply with copyright law. Yworo (talk) 02:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In addition, you are not being very careful with your edits. You replaced the wikilinked name of the artist, Frances Anne Hopkins, with "her". However, the artist was not previously mentioned in the paragraph, so you have now mistakenly attributed the painting to Eastman Johnson, who is a him, not a her. Your edits are sloppy and misguided. Yworo (talk) 03:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Finally, "making a change" is not "starting an edit war". Such an unfounded accusation could be considered a personal attack. In no case could a single good-faith change to an article be seen as "starting an edit war" except by someone who feels that they own the page. But there is no ownership of pages on Wikipedia. So please assume good faith and don't accuse editors of "starting an edit war" when they have simply made a change that reflects their own good-faith understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 03:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yworo, I asked you to bring two matters up on the talk page. Your failure to do so could be interpreted as bad faith, an unwillingness to have your one-sided decisions discussed. So far as I can see from the pattern of your editing at The Song of Hiawatha, they are all to do with respecting your interpretation of 'policy', not with testing that interpretation. Your whole justification reeks of Wikifinagling. As an editor you naturally have the right to express an opinion, but if you are asked to have it tested by discussion and then do not do so, then we have an issue of POV.

The WP:V that you site is all about textual information, not about providing a source of visual information. The 'solution' that you proposed for the Frances Anne Hopkins oil painting admits that it is legally accessible - as you have found out for yourself. It is also notable as cited in a scholarly source here The solution you implemented was cumbersome and bureaucratic. Allowing a reader to access it at the sole online source would have been quicker. As I have argued with you before, the guidelines on verifiability are there to make sure the article is sound but not to hinder access to legitimate information. In this case, I consider stretching the policy to cover visual sources out of copyright as questionable and I should like to see how administrators view your interpretation. In my experience, they are prepared to review presentation of policy if this helps readers. Let's put an edited version of this exchange on the talk page and see what others think. I'll bring up the other matter of resizing when I have more time.

As for citing ownership, I've noticed it is the inevitable weapon of self-appointed policemen who don't like their decisions being called into question. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed

Hello Mzilikazi1939,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! Jeremey Bentham (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Androcles2.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Androcles2.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

With reference to your message, I have once again sent permissions-enwikimedia.org the permission granted by SilverTiger to use the image from his blog on Wikipedia Commons. Please note that this was sent originally on 13 Feb this year and I am at a loss why it has not been acknowledged. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Unanswered question

Two weeks ago, you were asking about the photo of the statue of the Serra Fox.

"Where I wanted to upload this one was not Commons but English Wiki. I have permission from the photographer (already sent to OTRS) to use it in the two articles it is presently illustrating. How do I get it transferred there?" Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Upload it to English Wikipedia. Specify that it is a copyrighted image, that the copyright belongs to the sculptor Richard Serra. and include a proper fair-use rationale. That will keep it from being transferred to Commons. DS (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness in replying, Df67. Following the image's deletion, that is the course I took on English WP and hope it will settle the matter. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The Farmer and the Viper

I note that on the page for The Farmer and the Viper you deleted my note in the Modern References section that the story appears in a film. Your specific reason was that it was, "irrelevant". I wonder, therefore, if you could please clarify your criteria for relevance in a way that makes it clear why a modern reference in a song is relevant but one in a film is not. Thank you. Cottonshirtτ 00:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your inquiry, Cottonshirt. My rule of thumb when dealing with modern references is whether it advances knowledge of the subject of the article. There are dozens of modern retellings of fables (in children's books, for example) which simply churn out the same story. They aren't noteworthy in encyclopedic terms, where only the most relevant facts can be selected. You give no indication of the fable's storyline in your note, just say it's cited by a Navaho in a film. So what? It's only something in a script. As for the song-reference, that was part of the list when I came to expand the article. It's a borderline case, but at least one can listen to the song and make one's own judgment about whether it's perpetuating the story in a new medium. As you may have noticed, a reference to the film was deleted earlier for the reasons I've given. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your rule that the criteria should be whether it advances knowledge of the subject of the article, even if I could not have expressed it that way myself. From which it would seem that being perpetuated is encyclopedic even if any particular example of that is not of itself hugely relevent. In which case, why not delete the whole, "Modern References" section altogether and just have a brief paragraph that says exactly that, that the fable is perpetuated in a wide variety of modern media, books, songs, and film, etc, (without necessarily naming any of them at all) indicating its continuing relevance. I'll let you decide, as I don't really have any ongoing interest in the article.

For reference, in the film Natural Born Killers, the Navaho invites into his home a serial killer, then tells him the story of the snake. Then the serial killer shoots the Navaho turning the fable into a prediction. The actual dialogue in the film is as follows: One day a woman went out looking for sticks, and in the snow she found a snake frozen almost to death. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day, the snake bit her on the cheek, and as she lay dying the lady said, "Mister snake, why did you do that?" and the snake said, "You knew I was a snake." Cottonshirtτ 07:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your understanding, Cottonshirt, and for filling me in on the version of the fable in Natural Born Killers. It's interesting that there's a woman in this version, where most previous ones have a farmer/countryman. I note that it's a woman in the 1968 song I cite - maybe that's why I retained it. It's the first instance of the woman variant and therefore encyclopaedic. The trouble with the 'Modern References' title for that section is that it does not express what it is about, which is adaptation and variation of the story, often in different genres. It's not enough to say simply that it happens, since WP policy is to cite sources for verifiability. So a few notable examples are given from which an idea is given of that variation. As I mentioned above, what is important is not that the original story is being repeated but that it is being applied to new situations and adapted. It obviously is not in the film. The lesson that the vicious do not respond to kindness was the situation the fable was designed to express 2500 years ago, so the film isn't being original. On the other hand, the Hawthorne and Kushwant Singh fictions do genuinely explore new territory and so add to our knowledge. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Circe in the arts

An article that you have been involved in editing, Circe in the arts , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Makfa Ninmu (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Era style

Hello. Because you participated at some point in this lengthy discussion about the wording of MOS guidelines pertaining to the use of BC/AD and BCE/CE, I thought you might want to contribute to the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE). I'm trying to notify all the individuals who took part in the earlier discussion but haven't weighed in yet for the current one. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Image location

Hello. What did you mean by it being "insensitive" when I took an image that was centred in one section of the article, and instead put it in the top-right of the lede? Given that the article lacked a WP:LEADIMAGE, this seemed like an obvious one. --McGeddon (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Centre position is provided for as an edit possibility, so there's nothing wrong with that. When someone comes along and alters what is obviously a deliberate choice in the name of dull conventionality, yes, I call that insensitive. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Miser at the Palais-Royal

According to Joseph Garreau (McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of World Theatre), The Miser was premiered at the theatre in the Palais-Royal on 9 September 1668. Perhaps the audience consisted of members of the court (he doesn't say), but it was certainly performed in a theatre. I believe your revert of that addition is very likely incorrect. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Check also this entry at césar which confirms that L'Avare was first performed at the Théâtre du Palais-Royal, Paris, France. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Correct; in fact there are two theatres going by that name and you've given a link to the right one. I tried to remove some ambiguity by saying the play was acted at court, following the study guide here, but that's probably inaccurate. The theatre was sited on royal premises, but Louis XIV did not live there, and there does seem to have been public access to performances; I'm not sure how general that was, especially when the king attended. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Hello, I've reverted some edits you've done to plot summaries of certain films. Per WP:FILMPLOT, Plot summaries don't need citations and will contain spoilers. If you are prepared to read an article on a film (especially a section labeled plot), one should expect spoilers. Please stop removing these plot summaries. Thanks! Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. Thx for pointing to the guidelines. It bothers me that some of these 'summaries' are too long and not well written as encyclopedic entries. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for cleaning up the edits. Keep up the good work otherwise! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. I've now revised the entries you reversed, following the guidelines. It's disconcerting to find that later editors have such different interpretations of Atrocious. It suggests that the guidelines are wrong in allowing unsupported summaries. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Very well done. An excellent article; well created and well written. Thank you. Bruno Russell (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Plautus's Aulularia

Hello. You recently reverted a minor edit I made to the article on Plautus's Aulularia. This is fine by me, since I thought I was simply altering the wording of the two sentences with no intended change in meaning. Could you clarify for me how exactly was the meaning of those two sentences altered by my edit? Thank you in advance! Eemil Kankaanpää (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my mistake, Eemil Kankaanpää. I meant to take out the whole section for the reasons given - and have now done so. In addition, some of that stuff there would belong in other sections, if it could be properly referenced. It was a piece of negligent editing on the original writer's part. Keep up your good work; I see from your talk page that you're taking editing seriously. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for your compliment. Eemil Kankaanpää (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The Birbal article

Good day, after you've cleaned the birbal page last time, I was working on it. I found some sources, and think that I can expand on it regarding his actual role in history along with another section 'folklore' which would deal with his stories and their origins but I'm still trying to find his exact birth place since sources are contradicting each other. The whole article is uncited, and the two references (which were there and I removed them) provided hardly any leads so I started searching. You made this edit which removed a little of what I added, I just wanted to clarify? I've hardly finished. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 12:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have left a fuller answer on your talk page. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Gayasan National Park

An article that you have been involved in editing, Gayasan National Park, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Rystheguy (talk) 05:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Etaples art colony

	The Original Barnstar
	What an excellent, useful, thorough article. Good show. --Lockley (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

A page you started (The Beaver (fable)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating The Beaver (fable), Mzilikazi1939!

Wikipedia editor Narvekar ameya just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This is reviewed

To reply, leave a comment on Narvekar ameya's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

File permission problem with File:Dancing monkey.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dancing monkey.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Puzzled

I don't know what I've done to make you so unhappy; the two image edits I made were meant to agree with comments you made at Talk:The Ape and the Fox, where you deleted (!) all my comment but one sentence. Not really good etiquette on talk pages to delete or alter another editor's comment, and I was expressing my interest in what you said. I thought it should be added to the article (with a citation, of course) to fill a coverage gap and provide a context for the charming image you've provided. Here you call me a "fundamentalist," and say you categorically dislike me. This is such a novel label to hear applied to myself that I'm more baffled than offended. At any rate, all my edits and comments on the Aesop material were meant to support you. Are you perhaps unaware that your behavior could be perceived as uncivil? I was attempting to facilitate your contributions, in line with usual content standards. I'm very sorry I didn't come across that way. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at your Talk page, where I've moved the discussion. It was ceasing to be relevant to the article. You should have looked at the edit summary and waited a while. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This all seems to be a big misunderstanding. Again, I am sorry. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Spode Platter Aesop.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Spode Platter Aesop.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Spode Horse & Donkey.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Spode Horse & Donkey.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

On the article Henny Penny

Hi, Mzilikazi1939. Just about Henny Penny:

• The disambiguation page The Sky is Falling states that the title The Sky Is Falling is one of the known titles for Henny Penny
• The Sky Is Falling (fable) redirects to Henny Penny
• The redirect The Sky Is Falling (fable) is capitalised, with no exclamation mark
• The article states: The phrase "The sky is falling!" features prominently (etc...) but the phrase itself, emphasised and cited between quotation marks, although being (without exclamation mark) a synonym title, here it is mentioned as the phrase itself, not the title. When mentioned as the title it must be written The Sky is Falling. When mentioned as the quoted phrase it must be written "The sky is falling!"

Thus, the title The Sky is Falling should be added to the list of titles and the quoted phrase shouldn't have been written emphasised. The proper typo for this part of the text is, in my humble opinion, the following: The phrase "The sky is falling!" features prominently... (etc.)

My edition was correct and I think that you shouldn't have reverted it back. Regards. Kintaro (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The trouble was that you made changes of two different kinds at the same time. Whatever it says on WP's disambiguation page, I challenge you to find a properly referenced mention of frequent use of the title "The Sky is Falling" for this folk tale. The redirect is there because people in the past asserted that this was the case, without reference. I have trouble following the grammar of the fourth point you make. If you mean mention of the phrase should not be in bold, then go ahead and change that.

Also, take a look at the Talk page, where there is prolonged discussion of the proper name by which the tale should be known.I don't remember anyone contending there that "The Sky is Falling" is or ever has been a candidate. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 17:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Polyphemus

Hello, you undid two edits at Polyphemus' article but you didn't support your reverts with some citations. Homer does not tell if his Cyclopes are one-eyed. This view is supported by several Homerists, including Richmond Lattimore. Unless you have some reliable citation to support your views, please refrain from undoing another editor's work. Instead of reverting, consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. --Odysses (○) 18:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I did so because the points you made did not belong in the lead section, as I pointed out. They were also inadequately referenced. I suggest you too are not sufficiently aware of WP guidelines. See your talk page for a fuller explanation. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

a recent edit of mine

hi, just wanted to clear up a recent edit of mine that you reverted. i must have been editing an old revision of the page, since i only meant to change the {{displaytitle}} template to the DISPLAYTITLE: magic word. i was not the creator of any of the other content in my edit. my bad! seems the error got fixed anyway. thanks for catching my mistake. cheers! ~ Boomur [☎] 00:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, Boomur. Yes, there does seem to have been a mix-up somehow, since my reversion cleared the bad editing at the same time. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at Talk:Aesop's Fables#WP:ERA

I've opened a discussion at Talk:Aesop's Fables#WP:ERA concerning the use of era style in the article, and you are respectfully invited to join the discussion so that an agreement might be reached. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 12:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

==Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mzilikazi1939, User:Dougweller and User:Johnbod reported by User:WP Editor 2011 (Result: ). Thank you. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC))

Philosophy of education page concerning Thales

There is a vote on the Philosophy of education page concerning Thales of Miletus . . . I need some support with his defense . . . could you visit that page and cast your vote?Stmullin (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Continent of Circe page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorted Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Chanticleer

I questioned Yates, but he wasn't being used as a source for "there has been considerable investigation", he was used as an example. My questioning of Yates was irrelevant to the fact that "there has been considerable investigation" isn't sourced at all. If I'd removed Yates as a source, or added a 'dubious' tag, I could understand removing my fact tag, but I don't see my fact tag as in any way pov. Of course, if you think that the claim for considerable investigation into its origin is sourced sufficiently in the article then you were right, but you seem to have removed my fact tag for the wrong reason. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

A poor transition on my part. The sentence with the first reference was part of the article before I edited it, I think. The following sentence and its ref was mine and both refs are examples of the investigation into origins. The thing can be sorted by modifying the 'considerable', I guess. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

North wind and the Sun

You reverted my edit of The_North_Wind_and_the_Sun."the traveler was overcome with heat and had to take his cloak off."

I would like to discuss my problem with the version of story in Wikipedia. The moral of the story is persuasion is better than force. This is written in the opening. Cold is a force and Hot is a force. The traveler HAD to keep his cloak on to stay warm when the wind blew, the traveler HAD to take his cloak off because it was too hot. In both cases it demonstrates force. When in fact the traveler did not have to take the cloak off when hot. This is the persuasion bit, he chose to take it off. If the cloak was forced off as the word "HAD" implies, then the removal is by force, which goes against the meaning/moral of the story.

I do not know how old the story is, what version this one is, how many times it has been translated, but the word "had" is inappropriate. --Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

What you are arguing is a POV interpretation of the story - and of linguistic use, since 'had to' can refer to the man's inner compulsion. Find a reputable reference that supports your interpretation and then we will have something to discuss. I can find dozens that point out that Aesop's fables are marked by their succinctness. Your fussy detail did violence to the fable's style. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at the "Orthographic version" on the webpage.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a friendly note

Mz, you have gotten into some tiffs with an editor or two over the quality of sourcing. This is just to clarify a couple of points that I have learned from hard experience. First, all editors are indeed equal, as you suggest. However, the various standards that exist regarding our work are not all created equal. While there are a fair number of explanatory and guideline documents, there are also WP policies, e.g., WP:VER and WP:OR. These are so central to smooth WP operations that you will "lose", if claiming your opinion should have equal weight to another's when the other editor's view is in line with one of these sets of policies, and yours is not. Bottom line, these are not friendly suggestions or guidelines, they are the lifeblood of the place (and near universally seen as such). As an editor in the sciences, I view the existing policies as being too few and too loosely applied. But absent them, even as they are, there would be absolutely no basis for scientific writing here. So, when another editor says that we do not, except in rarest of occasion, allow citation of blogs, self-published works, etc.—that editor is on very firm ground, and to resist this places you on a path that will waste much time for you without an eventual positive outcome. Finally, if a chess player or one familiar enough with the game, it is worth considering both how the game theory logic of the threefold repetition rule applies to editorial differences expressed through reversions, and how the situation would be altered if multiple players could walk on and "reset" the repetition count—because these are the very principles operating in the run up to an exit war. I for one waste no more time with reverting; if I make an edit, and someone reverts it, I try once to return the original material, paying attention to the concerns raised by the reverting party. If even my thoughtful, improved version sees a further reversion, I do not take personal action. Rather, I seek assistance (so, resetting the count, and avoiding coming near to the 3RR policy). Hope this begins to help. And, by the by, avoid dissing the Yanks. As in times past, some may prove to be best allies. Cheers, oh, and check into archiving your Talk, to shorten the visible content of this page. Ask technically oriented friends, and seek me out and I will do what I can to help. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, LeProf. You have obviously been doing a lot of reading and have a lot more patience than I do. Certainly you're more integrated into the community, so I appreciate advice from someone who knows his way around. Earlier on, I've twice looked at the archiving guidelines and was defeated by the unhelpful gobbledegook. If you could explain in simple terms how to create one, I'd be grateful. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

John Close

hi, nice article. however, when citing goggle books, it is useful to use http://reftag.appspot.com/ - when you paste the url there, it fills out all the cite book reference formating. it also groups references together using "ref name". a list of work in bibliography format would be nice. i will also leave a link to his DNB article at wikisource. 38.104.59.114 (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:British labouring-class poets

Category:British labouring-class poets, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Berck

Certainly not, no specialist of the French toponymy from Auguste Longnon, Auguste Vincent, Maurits Gysseling, Albert Dauzat, Ernest Nègre to François de Beaurepaire, etc. would support such a fringe theory. The old forms of the name are perfectly clear : Bergis, Berc, Bierk. Phonetically, it is not relevant : bekkr would have lost the final /r/ like it is in all the Scandinavian place names in -beck, -bæk, the English place names in -beck and the Norman place names in -bec. The Viking trade routes did not change local toponymy in Flanders, some names were adapted, but their etymology is clearly Old Low Franconian, Old Saxon (or Anglo-Saxon) and Dutch.Nortmannus (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Quentovic is not a Scandinavian place-name in vík, it is already attested a long time before the Viking age, such as Cuentawic (in 755 - 758) and diverse Latin document as a vicus Maurits Gysseling [1]

First, the text only talked of conjecture. In addition, it must be enormously sophisticated "school kids" who come up with bekkr. Actually, I didn't think either that conjecture or the theory that berg can be stretched to cover sand-dunes held a lot of water. But since the suggestion had been made, I thought NPOV obliges us to at least mention it. I found your intervention high-handed, therefore.

Quentovic? I've seen the suggestion of Viking influence, but I guess 755 is a bit early for that to have changed the name. The -vic/wick ending can usually be referred to Latin/Old English/Low German on either side of the Channel, I agree, but when the site is maritime there is also the other possibility. Think of the Viking place names in Pembrokeshire, for example.

Mwé, dji djåze li walon ine po. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the kids found this information in a source, that is not specialized. Typically amateur. The toponyms can only be studied from the ancient forms, here : Bergis, Berc, Bierk do not have anything to do with bekkr. Moreover the word in Old Dutch is beke > beek and it would have been understood as so by the local population. That is the reason why no toponymist would write such a fanciful thing. Maurits Gysseling and Ernest Nègre after him, think that berg cannot be used here, because there is no "real hill", but I do not think so, the word could also mean in Low German a "small hill", "hillock", like in Barg (Schleswig-Holstein, Barch 1466, Berge 1477) W. Laur Historisches Ortsnamenlexikon von Schleswig-Holstein p. 138b. If the ancient form Bergis is right, we can suppose it, there are many examples in Northern France to support this berg etymology, such as Bargues (Nord, Bargas 1147), Barques (Seine-Maritime, Barc 12th), Barc (Eure, Barco 1087), Bierges (Marnes, Biergœ 1158 , Biergiœ 1161). Concerning the solution of Birkja, there is a village Bark ("birtch" or "birtch wood") in Schleswig-Holstein, mentioned as Berke 1249, 1433, 1479, 1650, that is relevant as comparizon too. No toponymist identify a Viking place-name in Flanders. They only adapted local place-names such as Bruggja from Brugge, the original Dutch name. They did the same for Dublin, that is clearly gaelic and they called it Dyflinn and plenty other place-names in Ireland. In France they called Rouen : Ruðu or Ruðuborg that is still the name of the city in Icelandic, but it does not mean that the etymology is Old Norse, this name is derived from the medieval form Rothom, from a Gaulish place-name. You can't compare with England or Scotland, where the Nordic etymologies are supported by the specialists and the fact, that there plenty of typical Scandinavian place-name elements around, like in Normandy. Moreover, the Viking age is quite late and we have plenty of documents from the pre-viking era mentioning the places, so when they changed, if they have changed, it is sometimes clearly attested, for example in Normandy : Caratotinu(m) changed to Herolfloth > Harfleur, Coriovallo to Chiersburc, Chiersborc > Cherbourg, river Tella to river Dieppe. Changings in the place-names suppose settlers and these settlers had to be more numerous downtown and all around, if not, the populations continue to call the place in their vernacular language (see Wicklow#Toponymy). Of course official place-names did not exist and no official spelling too. Oui je comprends le wallon, même avec cette étrange écriture, ce qui rend la langue plus facile à l'oral pour moi.Cordialement.Nortmannus (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

At first I thought your Barg might be some curious aberration of the Angeln dialect, but then I found the street An de Barg in the middle of Meggerdorf on the sole bit of ground slightly uplifted from the surrounding bog and decided you had proved your point! I guess you've never been to Wroot in the Hatfield Moors, have you? Every house is perched on a toft and you cross to them over a bridge from the road. That's how it looks An de Barg would be on the map.

Actually, when I claimed to 'speak' Wallon, I guess I was stretching the truth a bit. I can read Lidgois fairly fluently, but have more trouble with Namurwès; I'm also acquainted with most of the sound changes behind Belgian Picard forms but get lost with Chti. The système Feller is helpful for negotiating Walloon texts, although some of the forms are a bit odd. How on earth is fontin.ne supposed to be pronounced? I guess you'd prefer some specialist phonetical system that would have completely lost most of the non-academic writers I used to consort with. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Unfortunately I do not know, but I checked on Google. I suppose fontin.ne is pronounced with a nasal /i/ [ɛ̃] + n. There are similar sounds in Cauchois Norman I am not able to pronounce easily as a native Norman, because the usage of the right language was lost. For example pon.me "apple". I have no idea about the different kinds of Wallon dialects, I only know a bit about Wallo-Picard. SalutationsNortmannus (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of templates

Please don't delete templates as you did here.[2] Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice that you did not replace the templates exactly, however, and am pleased. Namo Buddhaya! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The drowned woman and her husband

I thought I put the citation in this time. What, exactly, was missing?Omeganian (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Demonstration of relevance was missing, although your addition of the pay-off line this time points that way. See the new section in the article's Talk page for how the situation has been resolved. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Aesop's Fables#Aesopus Moralisatus

I've replied there, in case someone else is interested too. --Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Christopher Anstey

Kindly take it to the talk page after reviewing WP:RS and WP:CITE. The EB9 more than qualifies as source for a 18th-century literary figure. They do seem to have been mistaken in naming him as an MP, but that mistake itself is worth noting. (There seems to be more to it: they go into the detail that his father-in-law purportedly bankrolled his campaign. That probably came from somewhere other than just the top of their heads.) If you have newer sources to replace the EB9 cites, by all means use them. But, no, you don't just revert 1k of sourced content without reason. Note some objections to the new content and have sources to replace them with; don't simply remove cites in favor of nothing or pretending the EB11 material was original. — LlywelynII 15:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

EB1911 often reprints earlier articles. The fact that the 1878 article was replaced in 1911 is evidence of its unsatisfactory nature in the opinion of the EB editors. In addition, you make several editing errors. Your quoted source said 'competent', not 'considerable'. The 'public school' that was insultingly addressed was a department within the university, not an English public school at all. The rustication followed this address, not Anstey's resignation of his fellowship. You destroy the sequence of Anstey's first visit to Bath as a consequence of his illness by intruding the publication of the Latin translation, which happened two years later. EB1878 does not say the Guide was overshadowed by Humphrey Clinker, nor does any later source. 19th century references, Betjeman's knowledge of the Guide, and a new edition of the Guide in 2010, coupled with regular mention of his translation of Gray's Elegy, are all evidence that Anstey was and is still remembered. I will edit out all this uncritical and uncomprehending use of a poor source and, as you suggest, will transfer this discussion to the talk page. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tintern Abbey may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Monckton Milnes, 1st Baron Houghton|Richard Monckton Milnes]]’ “Tintern Abbey” from 1840. <ref>[Poetry for the People, [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2Zo-AAAAIAAJ&lpg=PR8&ots=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's notable people

Per consensus here[3] and these guidelines[4]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Also here is why I removed Laura Stovall. The only sources you had for her notability were a personal website and Imdb. Per WP:USERG a subsection of WP:RS. It reads- "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." The two references for Stovall can't be used (Another point- neither page you were pointing to said Stovall was from Lovelock) to prove Stovall's notability. If you can some other reliable source(s) to prove Stovall's notability, she can go back in....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)