User talk:Anna Roy/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Anna Roy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Angelou

Spanglej, I support boldness as much as anyone, but I think that you might have gone a little overboard with Dr. Angelou's bio. I certainly wouldn't characterize some of your large deletions as "trivia". It's customary to discuss any major edits on the article's talk page. As a result, since you removed some important content with your edits, I'm reverting you. If you'd like to discuss any wholesale changes, please do so on the article's talk page. This article is in great need of some major copyediting, I realize, but not the removal of huge chunks of content as you did. I welcome any copyediting and additions to the article, of course. --Christine (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To twit

Greetings Spanglej - thought you might be interested in the following:OED. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Keats and refs

Hi, Spanglej, you're quite welcome. I tend to have an eye for detail, something that has been drilled into me after half a dozen or so trips to FAC, so I'm glad to help out. As for the addition of the "Retrieved on/Accessed on" perimeter, I believe that you're correct in that it's meant as a safeguard against deadlinks. A source with a recent "Retrieved on" date will of course be considered a safer bet than one that was accessed several years ago. I sometimes go through the links in articles I've worked on in the past, just to make sure that they're still working; if they are, I update the access date. This may seem anal and unnecessary, but I find it strangely calming. :)

As for Keats' article itself, I'm not sure I'm confident enough in my abilities (even with two degrees in English lit!) to contribute much to the article other than tiny fixes here and there. An author's works section is the most difficult to write, as I discovered with both Emily Dickinson and Stephen Crane, so I definitely know where you're coming from. I would gladly help with copy-editing, and any other source-related issues in the article, so just let me know. Take care and good luck, María (habla conmigo) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Moore

Please keep your edits to substantive information and relevant facts. Unless you have information which clearly disputes the well sourced and cited additions I have made, it is inappropriate to promulgate falsehood. I openly wear and admit my environmental bias and at the same time strive to report the facts plainly and fully.

Your previous edits are appreciated, but wholesale removal of carefully worded and painstakingly researched facts is not appreciated. If you have suggestions or edits for specific wording of the facts, I am very open to that and look forward to it and welcome it.

Please, though, do not engage in wholesale censorship because of hastily perceived opinion. The facts ARE the facts. The facts ARE: 1. Moore claims he is a co-founder of Greenpeace. 2. Moore uses those claims to garner more media attention and income for himself. 3. The claim is utterly false, as shown by numerous sources.

The clear delineation of this is as critical as Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" and John Edwards "That is not my baby". The falsehoods and the delineation of the falsehoods are made intensely more relevant by Moore's own intentional promulgation of these falsehoods, to the extent that Moore's intentional and vociferous promulgation of falsehood is a story in and of itself.

The are more Moore facts which fall into the line of Moore attempting to promulgate well-substantiated myths as truth, and that, in and of itself, is a legitimate part of his biography.

As much as a biography gets to be fair to the subject, it also gets to be fair to the truth, and not a "fluff" piece for the subject. Moore has his own website and can fluff it up all he wants. Wikipedia is dedicated to the truth, which is not always pleasurable to the subject of the truth. TheForrest (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply.

Based on your comments, I changed the lead to make it more objectively current. I disagree about removing the entire "co-founder" thing to the Controversy section. It is relevant as Moore trades on it, and ANY mention of him being a co-founder needs to be framed accordingly. And I reassert that the facts are very, very clear. The cites I refernence are PRIMARILY from third party media outlets, published books, legal records in Vancouver, and Moore's own biographical timeline. (If the organization was founded in January of 1970, and Moore lists the beginning of his involvement as 1971, how can he possibly be a "co-founder" unless he's somehow cracked the whole time-space continuum thing?) I find it ironic that you say "Citing an essay and Greenpeace's own website as sources are not very useful as they opponents in the dispute." when that is ALL the evidence (and a corrected Greenpeace website archived somewhere else at that) there is to support Moore's claim to co-founding. I agree that this is not a propaganda or counter-propoganda leaflet, and at the same time, the facts do need to be clearly laid out.

I have no interest in an edit war either. I look forward to working with you further to achieve the commendable balance I am convinced you are equally committed to. It is more certainly in the best interest of promulgating truths that whatever biased tone I may present be adequately objectified.

TheForrest (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Wilde

Hi Spanglej, I hope you are well. I have realised that I never thanked you for your excellent bibliographical work on the citations in Oscar Wilde; it was so important in bringing the article up to a correct standard. You may have noticed that it was recently listed as a GA, and you ought be proud of your contribution to that. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)

Hola Spangle,

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)

Also, Enzo was born on a farm near Spangle, Washington!

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Keats‎‎

Hi Spanglej, rather than we fall out over two words, am I missing something than 'latest born' and youngest? I'm a bit puzzled tbh. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Difficult to convey succinctly I agree. Perhaps an explanatory note in the refs. I do have some bio and critical material on Keats but not were I am this weekend. Still, look forward to working with you on the page over the next few weeks. Best. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you email me pls, - I have a few sources. Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out how to send - you have e-mail, pong. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Moore

You're welcome. And thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Kingsolver

Hello Spanglej, thank you for some of the recent edits you made to the page Barbara Kingsolver. As was kindly noted above, major changes are usually discussed on the talk page, and I very much encourage you to take a look at what's recently been done there. The article has recently undergone a pretty serious peer review, and I'd like to work with you to incorporate some of your changes with the solid material which was already there, as I'm hoping to take it to a good article nomination soon. Could we perhaps discuss some of your changes on the articles talk page? Looking forward to working with you! Jhfortier (Talk · contribs ) 03:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I want to add a quick note about edit summaries: a great way to avoid frustration with other editors (in my humble opinion!) is to leave really detailed, complete edit summaries. If you are just fixing a typo, then by all means "ce" or "typo" are fine, but when you wrote "add quote and ref" as the edit summary, and you actually completely changed a section as well, that can be really frustrating. If another editor wants to review your edits to the page, it's especially difficult to find the correct ones, as you haven't left a complete edit summary. Just a friendly suggestion :) Jhfortier (Talk · contribs ) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all treading on toes; it's SO important to have different viewpoints. The peer reviews by a few different editors have been so helpful. The page went a bit quiet (another editor and I are both in the process of acquiring some third-party books on her literary themes to enhance that section before it goes back to GA) and some of your edits really did give me pause (Should the local eating go under personal life or writing career? I really actually don't know for sure, and would love some input). The edit summaries, though, I think are super important, and I'm glad you agree; I've known editors to try to disguise more controversial edits with really general edit summaries, and since then I've really valued how much they can prevent misunderstanding among editors.

Well, that was a really round-about way of saying I'm looking forward to extra input on the page and working with you. Happy editing! Jhfortier (Talk · contribs ) 04:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the TNH:talk page

Hello - You made the following comment on the TNH talk page "I should think there are deep problems at all of TNH's monasteries and through the empire, speaking from personal experience. I can see no news on the http://helpbatnha.org/ and see nothing recent in the media." and I found it interesting. I've had adding info about the crisis at Bat Nha on my to-do list, but haven't found time to add it yet. The issues at Bat Nha relate to the Vietnamese government's state sanctioned religions and their contention that Bat Nha falls outside the official state Buddhist church. Your comment, though makes me wonder if you are thinking of something else/more global. I would be very interested in hearing your views/observations. If you like, leave me a message on my talk page, and if you're not comfortable with that, let me know and I'll give you my email. Thanks Nightngle (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Illusionist article

Yeah, I meant copies as in prints of the film rolls. Actually prints is probably the word I was searching for. But cinemas is better if you found it unclear.

Regarding the order of the currencies the revenue is displayed in, I guess it doesn't really matter which way it's done, but my reason to put dollars first was that it is what Box Office Mojo reports. The euro numbers are my own calculation, based on the exchange rate on BOM's website (which should be the $/€ exchange rate from 20 June 2010). Glad to see more editors interested in this article, it needs a lot of copy editing but has a high potential to become really good eventually! Smetanahue (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Bamber

Well my first reaction was that it was probably a hoax. I was glad the AfD nom was uncompleted, so that I could remove it on purely technical grounds. However User:Helen Bamber Foundation as been around a little while (since 11th June) and has made only this one edit. Either it's a hoax (so why wait so long) or they have a genuine problem with the article. Just in case - and assuming WP:AGF - I left a suitable message on the user's talk page. --NSH001 (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Plath

Hi, This edit undid several recent changes I made. Firstly, there's no rationale given for arbitrarily downsizing the images; on high-resolution displays it makes them tiny compared to the article body, rather than scaling appropriately. Secondly, an article on a person is by definition a biography in its entirety; it therefore makes little sense labelling one section of such an article "Biography". Any thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for putting back the Joanne Greenberg interview link in The Bell Jar. What exactly is a "signpost" anyhow, for further reference? --Bluejay Young (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "signpost"; Thanks for the explanation. So it isn't some particular Wikipedia thing I should be aware of. Okay, thanks! --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Ashbery

Hi Spanglej – With respect, I'm concerned that your stating Kessler's version of events without Ashbery's response is rather less than ideal with respect to questions of balance and BLP criteria. I was quite careful in the original edit to not characterize, summarize, or enter into the fray, but simply to note the fact of the dispute's existence, and to provide cites so that a curious reader might read and judge the matter for her/himself. Might it be possible either to regress to that simple noting of the dispute's existence, which it seems to me is certainly appropriate for the entry with respect to BLP, or, alternatively, for you to provide something that notes Ashbery's version of events – particularly as this entry falls under the BLP criteria and we must be absolutely scrupulous in our presentation of any material that might be interpreted negatively.

Thanks. You're right. Spanglej (talk) 22:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Martin's religion

In the beginning in the section that talks about his early life it claims that he was raised in a Baptist family. I think that pretty much spells out his religion if you ask me.

"Clear eyes" on Steve Martin

No problem, I'm glad to feel like I'm helping. I've been watching you work and you're doing a great job. About all I can do is catch the little finicky bits. I think there're still more but I did what I felt I could for now. Keep up the good work. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Tati and The Illusionist (2010 film)

Hi, I noticed your involvement at The Illusionist re NPOV. The exact same is going on at the Tati article: I removed what I consider judgemental/POV bits, but the edit was reverted as "censorship". Somebody wants to make a point here. i am not sure which route to follow here. Superp (talk) 09:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great proposal. I have responded here. Superp (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Spanglej, for improving the quality of the articles yet considering personal sensitivities. Well done. Meanwhile, I have changed the introduction to reflect the section on the script. Cheers. Superp (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag - it's more or less balanced now I think. Maybe that last Chomet quote that was reverted should be there, but I'm pretty sure it will just be kicked out again. Cheers. Superp (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Akhmatova

nice work on that Decora (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi ha ha i was writing this compilment about your past many edits. i didnt know you edited mine until just now. i think it is great, however the only thing i worry about is that people will think Rayfield discussed the effect on their son Lev, when in fact it was Hayward discussing that in a separate book. thank you Decora (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a feeling that I could re-edit my paragraph down to about 1/4 its original size while retaining the same amount of relevance to Akhmatova, i will try this some day. thank you again Decora (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes the numbers seem to be completely random... i would just vote to say something like 'several hundred' were arrested and 'several dozen' were sentenced to death. i am moving on to write about IBM and the holocaust .. but uhm i will look at the uhm stalin and his hangmen book and see if i can pull what refs that rayfield used if he cited them. thank you Decora (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i find your latest version to be excellent.... but i pulled out rayfield and read it again and tweaked the paragraph again. see what you think please feel free to simply revert if you want. also, rayfield did not footnote the paragraphs specifically so i dont know exactly what source he used. Decora (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Gabriel Rossetti

Happy to help. - PKM (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more detail and citations, and put more images in the Commons. I have even more images to add. I think I have redressed the balance among the life, the art, and the poetry a bit. I have little interest in critical assessments of the poetry and don't have any of the contemporary references for that topic, so someone else will need to add citations there. I'll continue to tweak this and expand it as I have time.

Eventually I would like to break up the gallery by media (oils, watercolours, and drawings) but I have some homework to do adding the info to Commons before I can tackle that with confidence.- PKM (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I ordered the Treuherz et al. catalog, but it's temporarily out of stock. As soon as it comes in I should be able to source most of the rest except the poetry analysis, which seems to be from the McGann. - PKM (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a number of citations. Working on more. - PKM (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Giammarco

Hi Burrowsdcan. Regarding your edits of David Giammarco, which edits do you take issue with? If you see the talk page, you will see there is an ongoing difficulty with this article. It is essentially written as a promotion piece for Giammarco. Re WP:PEA, WP:WTW, WP:PROMOTION and many other WP guidelines, this type of blatant use of WP as a resume service is not ok. If you look at my edit summaries, you will see that many of the refs given were links to the same page or were IMDb biog links which are also not ok. I would appreciate your reversion back to my edits which were careful and noted in detail. If you think the syntax is choppy, please smooth it out. You will see that you have reverted WP code syntax, taken out links, italicisation and disambiguations. I hope the rationale behind the edits is clear to you. I look forward to hearing from you. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spanglej,

I'm a former TV Guide editor in Canada and a longtime media writer - I believe you mistakenly removed too many pieces of pertinent biographical data from the entry for a prominent individual from this country. I restored a plethora of online sourcing which had been deleted. There is much more that is not available online - as you know, major publications don't always have a complete online library from the archives. Lexus-Nexus is the most viable alternative to web sourcing. I, for one, wrote a feature on Mr. Giammarco back in 2004 which doesn't appear on the web. I believe the article is clear, concise, and lists important highlights as is. I don't quite understand how it is considered promotional when it simply lists achievements and biographical data that properly characterizes the many and varied aspects of his long career. If you feel extremely passionate about this issue, please do let me know and I will be happy to work with you. I have over 25 years editing experience in Canadian media. Thank you.

(Burrowsdcan (talk) 07:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've had this article on my watchlist for some time. Spanglej, I agree with your assessment. We should take the discussion off your userpage and to the article talkpage. I have it watched and will chime in as I have time. I've added a longish post there tonight. Ping me if you need me or have questions. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maya (again)

Thanks for the heads-up. Now that you mention it, I do remember reading some of the "talk" a month or so ago. Also read her note to you, above.

In the spirit of WP, trying to be BOLD, but I will drop Christine a note to say that I won't take it personally if she re-corrects some of my edits. She did say in her note to you that she knew it is still in need of some copy-editing. I am aware that there are many editors on WP much more competent and experienced than myself. After the little work i've done so far (just over 100 edits), I'm becoming very aware of the huge amount of labor some of you have contributed.

Once again, thanks for the memo. Happy editing! Ragityman (talk) 21:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Diannaa at 03:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Spanglej, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Spanglej/Don Quixote. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The count of Monte-Cristo

No, Spangley, Alex. Dumas did not go on a boattrip with the future Napoleon III, but with another of the Napoleonides, the guy who were called Plon-Plon. I have corrected your little mistake. However A.D did know Nap. III. They had several meetings during their young years. Mio Nielsen--82.125.63.111 (talk) 09:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Era Exhibition

REF: (WP:MARKUP, WP:CITE. Undid revision 383070281 by Stephen2nd.

Hi Spanglej, you're probably right. Unfortunately, I don't know how to upload images, so I tried to reproduce the page, as seen in the Exhibition catalogue. I did cite the "Victorian Era Exhibition in Earls Court," although remarkably very little is known about this event, my references were photocopied directly from the only known copy, (London reference library). This was an actual "Dickens Memorial," previously unknown, which I am sure is of interest to most Dickensians. How do you think this should be presented in the article? should I box the text? or write a new section on the exhibition &/or the memorial? Ta Steve :) Stephen2nd (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borges

I saw that you left a comment and then removed it. I think that the double or triple ref columns only works on Firefox browsers. You can trust me, the refs look fine when doubled or tripled. In fact, in my opinion, it looks better because on large screens with enough width, it makes the article less long in a "physically" length sense. I understand that on the Borges article it was changed to two columns because on small screens three might look horrible. I think that that is fine as it stands. TuckerResearch (talk) 21:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reflist#Columns and Template:Reflist#Browser_support_for_columns. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lowell

My pleasure! :) Jpcohen (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that I did add an edit summary for the change that you're referring to. I agree that the box quote looked nice so something should probably replace it that isn't already quoted in the content of the article. I'll think of something to add there. Jpcohen (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oprah

Thanks for your efforts on Oprah, they look good. Ashmoo (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My great pleasure. Onwards and upwards! Spanglej (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the preview function

When you make dozens and dozens of changes over a very short period of time, it is very difficult for others to follow what you are doing. Please use the preview function to try to limit the number of edits to make it easier for others to follow. SamanthaG (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anna Roy. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anna Roy. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 19:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Terry Richardson

Deliberate blanking of my reply, or am I missing something? ---Artiquities (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. apologies. Spanglej (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzrovia edits

Hi, noticed you've done some editing on Fitzrovia. Do you live near there? --Thegiantrodent (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in Fitzrovia, too. I'm a great fan of the place. --Thegiantrodent (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books, often referred to as "novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The announcement and open task box is updated quite regularly. You can watch it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WikiProject Novels announcements}} there.
While you are updating your userpage, don't forget our userbox {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/User WPNOVELS}}.
Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
Planning on starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines / template outlines some things to include.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the coordinators or an experienced member of the project; we will be happy to assist in any way we can. Again, welcome, and we look forward to seeing you around! Sadads (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Novels, currently we are in a lull of organization and activity, but if you have particular interests, I can help you identify where to find that information. Soon, hopefully, I will start a discussion on the talk page at WP:Novels about reviving the project, you might want to add that page to the watchlist. If you need anything feel free to ask, Sadads (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anna Roy. You have new messages at Jayjg's talk page.
Message added 12:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Oops + thanks

Thanks for fixing the image caption, much appreciated. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Don

Hi, Thanks for your edit to Monty Don. I could see no reference anywhere on the web to his publications called Mastercrafts or Lost Gardens. Were you thinking of TV series or have I missed something? Best wishes Spangle (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ABCTV in Australia is currently screening a series called 'Lost Gardens' hosted by MD. Production details Flashback Television Productions for Channel Four 1999. MCMXCIX I assumed it was 2009 but on reflection It may be 1999. Here is a link to the details in google Chrisfromcanberra (talk)

Brilliant Oprah edit

Your decision to merge the "media counter-culture" section and the "communication style" section into a single section, and then call that section "Oprahfication" was pure genius. Very well done! SamanthaG (talk) 00:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacNeice, you're welcome

Our freedom as free lances

Advances towards its end;

The earth compels, upon it

Sonnets and birds descend;

And soon, my friend,

We shall have no time for dances.

Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Akmatova

just wanted to say again how greatly i admire the article and your work on it. Decora (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Changes in religious status re WP:BLP

"The Administators' incidents notice board has stated that adding categories are not in accordance with WP:BLP policy". Did I add any new category without reliable reference? NO, I did not. Did I add any new category on Gloria Estefan page? NO, I did not. So what is the problem here? And BTW on Johnathon Schaech page there are sources that claim he is Catholic, so who's edits now are not in accordance with BLP policy. --Eversman (talk) 07:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, did I add any new category without reliable reference? NO, I did not. Did I add any new category on Gloria Estefan page? NO, I did not. Did I do anything against BLP Categories, lists and navigation templates? NO, I did not. So what are you talking about? And the sources on Johnathon Schaech page don't say he was was a Catholic as a child, STOP with the false statements. There is no word about any child, Quote;

Source No1; Fontana's Judas, played with a passionate intensity by 34-year-old Catholic actor Johnathon Schaech, is always thinking about how to cajole Jesus into capitalizing on his growing notoriety. Judas' efforts sometimes produce humorous moments, such as when he suggests that Jesus charge for his miracles.

Source No2; Applegate dates actor Johnathon Schaech (That Thing You Do!), and although they worship each other, they also "swap churches," says Applegate, who practices Religious Science, a New Age-ish faith, while Schaech is Catholic. "I go to his church, and he comes to mine. TV, like life, is goofy, and it helps me keep a clear perspective."

So, from this quotes it is obvious that there is no mention of any child, and that for a fact he is a practising Catholic.--Eversman (talk) 08:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eversman. I am referring to your addition of a Roman Catholic category to Johnathon Schaech on the basis of your addition that he was "Raised as a Catholic" (through childhood). Yes, the source you added on October 8th is more specific as to his practice as an adult. Span (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distraction

Hi, Sorry. Distraction. --Davide41 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

First, WHY do you disguise your user name as "Span" when you are, in fact, User:Spanglej. And WHAT is your reference for Loretta Young's religion? Other than people of the Catholic clergy, there cannot be more than five Americans better known to have been Catholic than Loretta, as I am certain you will learn if you bother to read any biography of her. The Catholic religion was more important to Loretta than virtually anything else in her life. As for the recently-deceased John F. Sullivan, I included a reference to his Baltimore Sun obituary. READ that obituary and you will agree that he was Catholic.

I have undone your disruptive editing deletions of the Category:American Roman Catholics for Young and Sullivan -- you deleted them again. This is fair warning that if I encounter any further such disruptive editing by you, I will post a complaint against you with Wikipedia.Aardvarkzz (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, in response, my name is not a disguise, it a signature, see Wikipedia:Signatures. Secondly, Wikipedia in an international resource. Many users, including myself, are not American. As a long standing editor, you will know that Wikipedia is based on five key guidelines which include Verifiability. This says: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." No source of religious practice is given in the article for Loretta Young. The cited obituary in the Baltimore Sun for John F. Sullivan gave no link to the article. No mention of his religion or religious citation is mentioned in the article itself. I have since added this. It is often useful to assume the good faith of other editors. The request to add sources is a standard, civil Wikipedia procedure. You are very welcome to make a complaint against me if moved or join the on-going discussion of category citation at Category talk:American Roman Catholics. Thank you Span (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic template

It's really a copy and paste rather than a template. You have to insert the page name. User:Cresix/Sandbox#Catholic cat Cresix (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor to keep your eye on is Htown23 (talk · contribs), who recently came off a block for WP:BLPCAT vio and immediately resumed adding the category. I just made a WP:AVI report. Cresix (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one: Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs). He/she has already restored a religious-related category with the statement that it "should not be deleted under any circumstances". I deleted it again, as well as another unsourced category about conversion to Catholicism that he/she added. I left him/her the standard message, but I expect a resistant reaction. Cresix (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

68.209.168.216 (talk · contribs): Restored cat after my first message. History of BLP vios and blocks. I issued a final warning. Cresix (talk) 18:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill's cousin

I replied on my page to keep things together. Best Giacomo 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!

Thanks for your suggestions at User talk:Thelema12/Gary Miranda. I will work on your suggestions. --Thelema12 (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isben

Hi. Random note. I saw your edit here in my watchlist, which rang a dim memory of a styleguide. I went looking, and found: Wikipedia:ISBN: "Use dashes if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts [...] (including hyphens is preferred if their proper placement is known) [...]"

Personally, I have no strong inclination towards either format (without dashes is more compact, and is what I usually add to lists). I just thought I'd mention it, so you could investigate further if you're so inclined. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. Thanks Span (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Gray

Hello from Reginald Gray. I notice you have put a banner on my page refering to "notability". I must tell you that I am not an expert on editing and most of the requests I get concerning "references etc., are a bit above my head. Painting has been my whole live and as I am now just turned 80 I prefer to continue to work with my brushes and paint that spend hours on the computer. As you may see I am an artist who is represented in many galleries and museums and in known private collections. Could you please tell me what you mean when you say my page is wanting in notability? I will try and do my best to please you but I would now like to let you know that all the text on the page is true and and without fault. Have a nice day Reginald. Reginald gray (talk) 14:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Span. Thank you for your kind mail. I have a suggestion to make....I would like to give you freedom to delete everything on my page such" as being a friend of Brendan Behan" and the "glasses of Beaujolais at The Coupole" although they are true remarks. Also you can delete all the extras that fall into the same category. I myself have added seven subjects yesterday to "External Links" which shows international websites that have a pages on my subject. This I guess should be a certain proof of my integrity. It might be a good idea of you could contact my good friend Roger Haworth whom I am sure you know. He has also helped me in many ways. I have been a little embarrassed by friends calling me from different countries asking me why all these somewhat negative banners are at the top of my page. Once more I thank you for your kind message and hope you may help me to "clean up" the page. Best. Reginald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reginald gray (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing mass add

Not that I know of, although an admin might know more. But even an admin probably would want each edit checked to be sure all are not legit. Cresix (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Brodsky

Hi. Thanks for your kind note. I will keep my eyes out on the Joseph Brodsky article. Well done. Best Wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of Tsvetaeva

Here is my translation of a poem by Tsvetaeva: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_many_fallen_ones_into_the_deepest_... (The link does not work in this form somehow!))))) Oh good gracious! Well, it does not include the three dot ellipsis at the end for some reason! Well, if you go to wikisourse, you will be able to find it, I hope!)))) I hope you enjoy it. Such kind of activity seems to fit me better than the editing of Wikipedia: no need to be unemotional. ;-)) Yours, Timeastor (talk) 09:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The predictably worn road.

I keep trying to be civil. -- Evertype·✆ 11:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic writers

Thanks for letting me know. I'm watching the discussion. Cresix (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Marlowe

Hello. You deleted the image of the WPA performance of Faustus in New York City. The image, I believe, shows the longevity of Marlowe's work, and how it remained relevant and vital, centuries later. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-added. Span (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I do think it serves a purpose there. Enjoy your weekend. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translations by Yevgeny Bonver

Hello Spanglej, Is there a reason why you do not like Yevgeny Bonver's translations of Alexandr Blok's poems? You have removed a link to the Poetry Lovers' Page, which is the official site of original and unique translations of Russian poets by Yevgeny Bonver. Poetry Lovers' Page has been around since 1995, is a quite reputable resource. Please consider re-adding the link back to Alexandr Blok's Wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry centric (talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spanglej,

First of all thank you for taking your time to reply and investigate the issue further. I believe the work you are doing is important and necessary and I applaud you for your efforts.

Having said that, below are some highlights of why I still think you should not remove links to Poetry Lovers’ Page (PLP) from Wikipidia entries of Russian poets, such as Alexander Blok.

You might not agree personally with each single argument below, however collectively these arguments should provide a strong case of PLP’s reputation and respect levels.

1. If you search in Google for “Yevgeny Bonver” -site:poetryloverspage.com you will see that over 300 websites (other than poetryloverspage.com) are directly referencing Yevgeny Bonver’s translations which are hosted on poetryloverspage.com.

2. Some of the Links to Yevgeny Bonver’s translation posted on Wekipedia have been around for years.

3. PLP is a trusted source to many home schooling sites.

4. PLP is bookmarked in Delicious, stumble upon, and digg, among others.

5. PLP is listed first in many search engines (Bing, Yahoo, etc.) when searching for “poet_first_name poet_last_name poems”, including the majority of the Russian poets whose translations are published on PLP.

6. PLP carries significantly more translations than the other websites currently listed in the external link section in Wikipedia. For example under Alexander Blok PLP has over three dozen of original and unique translations published so far while the other links provide about a dozen, collectively. By not listing this website you are denying the English speaking world of free and public access to Alexander Blok’s poetry.

To add, to this point, PLP is the official website that hosts Yevgeny Bonver’s translations. PLP does not re-publish translations of Russian poetry found on other websites, or previously published anywhere else – it only features content that cannot be found anywhere else. For example, if you stumble upon any one of the translations from PLP’s Russian Poets section anywhere else on the Internet, and there is no link back to PLP, it means the owners of the site in question have not obtained a proper permission from PLP to publish these translations, and are hosting them illegally.

7. Having said all the above, for comparison purposes I argue that PLP website has significantly more credibility than some of other links, such as the second listing http://max.mmlc.northwestern.edu/~mdenner/ which is simply a resource hosted in someone’s home directory at a university. As you might well know home directories are temporary while the person works/studies at that university and rarely can be considered as reliable stable and permanent resource. In comparison PLP has been a trusted resource since 1995.

As I mentioned at the beginning of this message these are just highlights. If you are still not convinced and require additional details, let us take this conversation offline and continue via email. For this purpose please feel free to contact me via PLP Contact Us form http://www.poetryloverspage.com/contact_us.html

Regards, Poetry_Centric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry centric (talk • contribs) 05:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I would have a look at the conflict of interest guideline. It seems that you are promoting an organisation that you are involved with. External links guidelines state: "You should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent". Best wishes Span (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Spanglej, Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have reviewed the links to the guidelines in your previous response. You are right, the policies state that one “should not” post links in my situation (the wording does not imply that it is forbidden). However, when in doubt, it states, that other editors should participate in review of the posted links. Given that I am still trying to introduce original material into the common knowledge base, I ask of you to remain objective, and that you once more review the PLP link/site, and please take another look at the arguments I posted in my previous message for keeping the link intact. Please let me know of your decision. In the meantime, in order to clear the conflict of interest issue, I will recuse myself from further postings on this page, and will let other editors step in, if needed. Regards, Poetry_Centric —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry centric (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Poetry Centric, I am not an arbiter of such things, the above is my take on things. I suggest we move this discussion to Blok's talk page. I still stand by my above views. I'm sure the site will be a great web resource but I think it's not best as a source of external links on Wkipedia. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Osip Mandelstam

Thanks, glad to help. It was 1921 in the article on Nadezhda Mandelstam, but I've not been able to find either date in another source (most are mirrors to Wikipedia). Still looking.Parkwells (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Jackson

Why did you delete anthologies? Don't they tend to go to WP:Author 3. "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Accotink2 talk 13:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I deleted the anthology entries for Major Jackson because he did not edit them. He was a contributor along with many other writers. We cannot list anthologies that writers have been in as they often contribute poems to hundreds of collections and hundred of writers are included in each one. I did research the books listed and it seems he had no further significant role in the books' compilations. I hope that makes my edit choices clearer. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched in vain for guidance or policy on the issue. does not being picked for an anthology tend to go to notability? are they not "multiple independent periodical articles"? a Pushcart Prize and a Best American Poetry do imply notability no? Accotink2 talk 14:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, they are not articles, they are single poems. No doubt Major Jackson is notable, my edit was not surrounding that. If you have 150 poets contributing one or two poems to an anthology you cannot list every author. You can see here and here, on Jackson's own website, that he lists his publications as the books he has written. As an example, the Billy Collins article gives a sense of how works are commonly listed. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tolstoy-nonresistance

hello, I dont think, this site is "religious campaigning", rather anti-war & peace . But the amount of Tolstoy-works on this topic to study... where else do you find such a page ? Thats why I still think, this link would be in the interest of Wiki-Tolstoy-study ! Shalom, Micha2 (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your effort, on the amount of links, well- maybe... but on neutrality: I cannot imagine a Tolstoy-page, that could be neutral on this topic! Tolstoy himself wasnt ! There are no pamphlets with anti-peace-agenda from him. He was one-sided on this, anyone presenting his writings on this topic will, must be too.

(this was my last try) Shalom from Micha2 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Morris

Thanks! - PKM (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. œ ^™ 03:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought. Span (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Olds

The criticism of Sharon Olds in the entry is hardly that--it's an unfair attack that comes from the Huffington Post (their whole series of "who's overrated" was designed to shock and offend; the rhetorical context of the criticism itself is prejudicial). Olds really deserves better in terms of real criticism that fairly addresses her work. 184.59.235.5 (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)sadiron[reply]

The Rage Against God

Please do not undo perfectly valid and helpful internal links. It will take me hours now to go through the article and reinstate them. Also, please do not copy edit official quotes -- these should be left verbatim. Thank you Jprw (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I undid links to such words as God, faith, introduction, peasant, museum and chapter. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I re-introduced the dash in the quote. Span (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs

Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St Matthew Passion

In Elijah (oratorio), I tried to link directly to the St Matthew Passion and to show it italic, as is common. Do you understand? Please answer here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Span (talk) 23:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding. But didn't I say please answer here? Now I have "St matthew's passion" on my talk, I will keep it for smiles, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

You reintroduced content here which includes a selected (and thus creative and copyrightable) list of commisioned artwork. Please take the time to ensure that you are not restoring copied material. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saskia Hamilton

I'm curious as to why you have twice removed information about the song "Saskia Hamilton" by Ben Folds and Nick Hornby. I don't edit much on wikipedia, but I don't understand why this wouldn't be considered a relevant contribution to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pajamamoose (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Child's Christmas in Wales

Please read the article carefully. I've just created the article 'A Child's Christmas in Wales'. I'm not going to then knock out an incorrect date for no reason. The link you reference which I used in the article states that the first publication date was 1954, but published under a different title, your own reference link states that. The first actual release of the poem was the 1950 Harper's Bazaar magazine, the first release under the actual title was in 1955. FruitMonkey (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jejemon

May I ask why you think adding a See Also section was a bad idea for the article Jejemon? Not only were those articles listed relevant but Jejemon is actually the filipino equivalent of Leetspeak. Please take the time to actually read what the article is about. I am filipino and I do respectfully know far more about the subject--A Step Into Oblivion (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Anna Roy. You have new messages at Astepintooblivion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I Feel It Should Be At Least Typed That Oprah's Own Family Disputes Her Claim of Molestation

Here is a source that backs the claim that Oprah's own family disputed her claim of molestation. [[1]] While Kelley also claims she believes Oprah's side of the story, it's not 100% believable either; Ester did concede that she told Kelley that Oprah lied about being molested and exaggerated the level of poverty she endured while growing up, but she also stated that she never told Kelley that Vernon Winfrey was not Oprah's biological father. As I typed on the Oprah talk page, she is known for not being completely honest.

It's also really hard to believe, from a neutral perspective, that Kelley knows that Oprah "shows the full scars of sexual abuse;" Kelley is not a psychologist and she does not see Oprah on a regular basis. She might have said she believed Oprah's side of the story so Oprah fans would buy her book. Oprah very well may have lied about being molested so people would watch her show; it's a real good business strategy to claim you are a victim of sexual abuse. If you want to argue that Oprah's relatives were trying to protect their family members when they disputed Oprah's claim, you to seriously consider the fact that they never stood in Oprah's way when she was using it as a market ploy; she, in fact, first brought up this claim of molestation in the first season of her show. I find it to be beyond a reasonable doubt that she did lie about being sexually abused and having cockroaches on her wall while growing up. 75.72.35.253 (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]