User talk:Anna Roy/Archive 4

Happy holiday s& when you get back

Hi, this is my note at the talk page for Svetlana Alliluyeva‎; : Sorry I wasn't clear -- I meant that the article's quote refers to the mother and the newspaper refers to the daughter. Manytexts (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC) Or so it reads to me. Manytexts (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Span :) Manytexts (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent amendments to the Elaine Feinstein Page

Hello, I'm writing from Carcanet Press publishers. One of our authors, Elaine Feinstein, has noticed that there are a number of inaccuracies on her wikipedia page. We've tried to correct them but it looks as though the corrections have been over-ridden. We're going to try to correct the article again, in particular a line about domestic unhappiness, which she would like removed and the town she grew up in, which is Leicester not Lancashire. Please can you make sure these corrections remain! Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetrybuff (talk • contribs) 15:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. We're grateful for your referencing advice. Elaine is also anxious to remove the line about domestic unhappiness which I've just removed but it seems to have reappeared. I've also be asked to make a number of small changes and additions to the text. These amendments were suggested by the author herself and can't be referenced to my knowledge. Thanks for your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetrybuff (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hey Span! We haven't had any contact in a while, how have you been? I've just made a fairly big change to the Hepburn page, so I'm back to ask my original, trusted guide for her opinion. It should be pretty obvious as soon as you see the page: instead of one main "Career" heading, I've made a few different sections, with subheadings. I mostly did it to make the page look a bit more interesting, so that it isn't such a wall of text. What do you think? Is it an improvement, or is it unnecessary? I'm in two minds as to which way was better... Maybe I should also ask for input on the talk page (although no-one has ever expressed any interest over there apart from you..!) --Lobo512 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you think it's better this way? I think I prefer it too. It's a big change though, I haven't changed it this much in a long time. I do feel proud of the article - it's really nice to be able to make such a good page for her when I love her so much. I got bored of it in December, but I'm back to enjoying it again haha. I'm such a good fan! Make sure you still check in from time to time, all the best. --Lobo512 (talk) 17:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert W. Service

No problem. It looked odd with all the italics and links gone. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Art Museum collaboration

You may be interested in this project. They have many Rossettis. - PKM (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual information unaccountably removed from Samuel Coleridge Taylor

Why have you reverted factual information I added today to Samuel Coleridge Taylor? I have visited the grave of the composer and added the information for those people who might wish to know where he is buried and what the gravestone says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen Conrad (talk • contribs) 14:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. Re-added with corrections. Span (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sestina

Thanks for the support, and for the work you've already done on the article. As I'm sure you'll have found and agree, the coverage of literature topics, especially poetry (and poetic forms), is quite dire on Wikipedia at the moment. Since I'm currently taking a module in Poetry at university, I figured it would be a good time to help sort that problem! Starting with the most obscure and difficult forms of course... ;) MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your work. I promise you, the poetry coverage is a lot better than it was a few years ago, especially biographies, but it all needs skilled investing editors. Drop me a line if you need a hand with anything. Happy editing. Span (talk) 17:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks!

Aww, thanks my old friend! I've certainly come a long way in this wikiworld, I never thought I'd be citing policy and whatnot...what's happened to me?!? I assume you've noticed I nominated the ol' Hepburn article at FAC. It looks like it is probably gonna close without passing this time round (which is perfectly understandable), but I think I can get it there eventually. I've come too far now, I don't think I'll stop til it is passed! Seeing as we're interacting, can I actually just ask what you think of a sentence? I've been trying to find a way of writing it all evening (inbetween the abuse), it's so tough...Basically in the opening sentences I want to communicate her personality/demeanor, comment on the roles she played, and identify the similarity between these two things.

" Known for her headstrong independence and spirited personality, Hepburn's career as a Hollywood leading lady spanned more than 60 years. With a distinctive patrician flair, she typically played strong-willed, sophisticated women on the screen."

Mehh...something like that. But does that just sound like it's trying too hard? Any ideas? --Lobo (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Gasp*, you almost removed my pie!! --Lobo (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to remove all the guff. I put the pie back. Freshly baked for you. Don't let the Fraggles get to you. All sorts of strange people rock up here, as I'm sure you know, many with less than great interpersonal skills. It's amazing how fast things can become personal and high octane. And how fast it can get to us as editors, despite our best efforts. I don't think I've ever encountered verbal abuse anywhere like I've received on Wikipedia. I suppose net anonymity raises the bar. I think your opening sentence is fine; not sure about 'patrician flair' as I'm not sure quite what it means. Seems a bit cryptic. I would say to let Hep's record speak for itself. She doesn't need bigging up. Simple and specific is best. You're doing a great job all over the place. I raise a mug of tea to you for grace under pressure. If in doubt, back up, have a cup of tea and let it all simmer down. There is no deadline, even (especially) in replying to daft messages. The snow looks pretty up on the reservoir in Stroud Green. Stay warm. Span (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lol I really should just stop trying to do "exciting" writing, or whatever it is I occassionally try and do. I see it around and aspire to it, but you need to be really skilled to make it work, which I am not. Do you think it needs to go more simple then? If you can think of a way of improving it please please do. But don't worry, I'm not feeling stressed or pressured, I only do this stuff when I want to. And it's half term now so I have a week off. Yaay. --Lobo (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you do not do yourself justice. You are just fine and you have a great set of skills. The FA lot like exciting writing, there's nothing wrong with it at all. I just didn't quite understand 'patrician flair'. It might mean all sorts of things. I'm spending much less time on WP these days and just check into revert the vandals. I am moving house and recovering well from a long term illness - life is moving right along. Have faith in your work and the time you have invested. You're better than you know. All best wishes Span (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, the FAC has had two supports for promotion now! I think I can take back what I said last night about it probably not passing! Wow, I can't believe it. I'll still be biting my tongue, but...for now, wow! Sorry, I had to share. --Lobo (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to share. I hope it gets there. Span (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woo indeed! I am thrilled. :-D Thanks for all the support Span x Lobo (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Sestina

Hi, good work on the article - it's great to see it expand. I wondered about the line in the current lead about the 1930s surge in popularity and the 1950s being the 'age of the sestina'. I suspect the critics were talking about Britain and North America. Was there a sestina surge in other European languages and countries, for example? I suggest that the 1930s/'50s surge line would be fit best under 'background'. It would be great to find out more about sestina forms in other languages and places. I'll see what I can find out. Thanks again for your good work. Span (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've been able to devote a bit of time in the last couple of days that I haven't been able to recently. As for that issue, it did cross my mind. Caplan talks about, earlier in the page, "Anglo-American literary history" - suggesting that the rest of what he talks about is with that in mind / reference. I will add this or an equivalent phrase to Background, but I'm not sure how else to finish the lede summary of Background - if nothing is said about the 1930s - 50s, then it goes from Dante to contemporary poets. Your thoughts? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about this: "The earliest example of the sestina in English appeared in 1590, but the form was rarely used until the end of the 19th century. The sestina remains a popular poetic form, and many sestinas continue to be written by contemporary poets." The lines currently in Background "The 1930s heralded a revival in its use, which attained a peak during the 1950s, a period which James E. Breslin described as the 'age of the sestina'", seem fine where they are, with qualification: if he meant there was a surge in the UK/US in the 1930s and 1950s. Have a good weekend. Best wishes Span (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That appear fine. I'll do that soon unless you wish to. And have a good weekend yourself. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a rather uninspiring weekend working on poetry for a university assignment, and then working on more poetry in my spare time! Madness... Fortunately that does mean that the sestina page might now be at a stage where it could be taken to GAN. Not sure if you want to give it a check or something; my mind has melted from looking at it for so long, so I'm about as impartial as Arnaut Daniel... MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking good. I don't have any sources to hand or I would add material. Look after your mental state. Make sure there is a good dose of fun in there. I would imagine there would need to be some more in depth analysis of specifics to go for GA, but I haven't worked a GA up before, so I don't really know the details. I spent a good deal of time last year on the Keats article. That's pretty much at GA except it needs a themes section which I have balked at. I'd have to pretty much start research from scratch and critical evaluation of work is always much tougher than biog detail, I find. Your thoughts and insights are much appreciated if you ever wander over John's way. Perhaps you sestina efforts will inspire me to get back to him. He certainly deserves it. Don't work too hard. Have a good week. Span (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gurney

If you keep changing the reference about the effects of gas on Gurney based on what appears on the Oxford war poets site that 'notably his injuries from gas might have worsened his condition', please note that this information is incorrect (the original Oxford entry was based on outdated scholarship and this reference is a lingering example). There is no proof that the gas had anything more than the short term effect on Gurney for which he was hospitalised. Anyone who has studied Gurney's life in depth knows that the gas was an unfortunate event but it was not a factor in his mental illness which was clearly evident in his behaviour long before the war. It might serve Gurney better to remove references to the effects of the gas rather than let misleading information remain in the entry. OwenBrooke (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dickens' article.

Hi Spanglej. I'm contacting highly respected literary editors as the Charles Dickens article has been of a low standard for a long period and edits unvetted. The one issue that needs to be dealt with in Talk:Charles_Dickens was one editors sweeping allegations. This subject in particular, has been in dire need of a collaboration and discussion among editors, and not one editors POV, so that consensus on the material is reached on talkpage, and the addition and wording scholarly. Having contributed to good articles your help would be appreciated Spanglej. Thanks. Harrison 1979 (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone for Runyonese?

Thank you Span. And thank you also for having the neatestly presented user pages around, grateful on head and eye. I've no idea if I can interest you at all in Damon Runyon, but this could be a very long shot... Best, — MistyMorn (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, how about the excerpt currently in the lede? Span (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I felt illustrative box/es would be more, well... illustrative. — MistyMorn (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I meant to suggest putting that quote in a quote box further down the article. I am happy to do it, if you think the quote is what you want. Span (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One or more quotes, one or more boxes? What do you think? — MistyMorn (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe start with one. I don't know his work so can't easily suggest more. Span (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Span. That makes sense. —MistyMorn (talk) 07:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Just wanted to leave a note of thanks for the barnstar. So often one edits along and only hears about it when when someone gets ticked off about it. Thus, its nice to know that ones efforts are (sometimes anyway :->) appreciated. Hope you enjoyed your leap day and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 01:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Barral

Could you explain how, in this case, the article is not relying on one source? The entire article has one source only, yet a bunch of unsourced prose. It would seem to qualify as "relies largely or entirely upon a single source." I just want to get it straight for the next time. What if there were no inline citations and simply a singles source listed under refs? Or what if there were 10 inline citations all pointing to the same source as opposed to 1 or 2 inline citations pointing to the same source. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article itself isn't drawn from one source. If there were ten citations all from the same source, then, yes, I think the tag would be fair enough. Why is there a two year cut off for unsourced text? There is nothing in the articles that is contentious or libellous. What guideline would account for that? I would appreciate knowing your thinking. Span (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asked to fix/correct/delete problem articles and you are reverting them. Multi-year unsourced sections and sentences I deleted, ESPECIALLY if they are for a Living person's bio. In fact it's required. If it's a no sourcing problem that's 2 years old I'm PRODing the article. You are not saying why you are bringing the info back unsourced... and you are bringing the info back without the old date tag. That date tag thing is really wrong. These things are never going to be fixed with that type of editing. I'll bring over an administrator to check this out, I have no idea your standing, but those articles can't sit there like that for another year. They or their sections have to go when we don't know if all of it's bunk or not. That's the reason those tags were put there to begin with, and they've been ignored till now because of backlog here at wikipedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to bring an admin over or get upset, I just asked you what guidelines you are following and to describe the rationale behind removing the majority of text from various articles. As I have explained above, I have not before encountered a two year cut off for unsourced text. These are good faith questions. Span (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was arbitrarily using a two year cutoff as I have seen 6 months used before. As for policy I'm not sure. I can say from experience that if these articles were on a list today of new articles to patrol they would be deleted out of hand and asked to be sourced before being brought back. And the tolerance of unsourced bios of "living people" is extremely low. Sections can get reverted on the spot. Now when I see tags from 2009, unsourced orphan articles since 2007, unsourced living people bios with tags from 1-4 years old, my inclination is that editors handling these articles are nowhere to be found or they don't care. If they are on someone's watch list they were probably also on those watchlists when they were tagged, so then they were ignored. If I prod them or delete sections it gets a couple things stirring. If no one cares then all is fine, the articles get deleted or remain in place with no unsourced material. If someone does care and it pops up on their watch page then it will get them to source the material and bring it back. But to simply bring it back unsourced and with no summary as to why, is unacceptable. And also to revert me but use a new date tag in the warning is also very poor policy. Then someone will think it's a new warning that they can ignore for another 2 years. That was the reasoning behind my edits. I was hoping it would get a group of editors to do right by these articles and fix them, if not at least it would remove some backlog of our administrators from having to do the same. So by all means bring sections back "sourced" or end prods because they are now sourced. That's the best thing for wikipedia. The worst thing is to leave the articles as is so readers will be confused about their accuracy for another 1-3 years. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for outlining your perspectives. In my view Wikipedia is not a neatly packaged project. It can be frustrating and messy, but as there are hundreds of thousands of volunteers working to all manner of different time scales and editing rhythms, this is not surprising. Editors do care and the worldwide readership uses the articles whether they are sourced or not. 95% of articles are currently unsourced. Deletionists will no doubt view BLP policy differently from inclusionists. BLP material that is libellous or personally contentious is removed. In my experience, updating tags tends to prod editors into making edits. A recent tag can inspire action, just as yesterday's copy edit spurs involvement. I think we work best when inspired by the project rather than when we are pushed into fight a 'rear guard action' as articles are stripped. "Fix it or there will be no article" is not a methodology, in my view, for building and sustaining a solid community of active, inspired editors. We are all working towards improving Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia; we all make our contributions; there is no deadline. This is not a new discussion on Wikipedia, it rages all over the place and a lot of editors leave in utter frustration at one view point or the other. I am not an overt inclusionist or deletionist but I do urge caution in making large scale mass edits. I appreciate your commitment to improving Wikipedia and all the work and time you are putting in to improving sourcing. All best wishes Span (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Borges

Hi,

Thanks for the quick and helpful response. I've created a proto-article in my userspace, and I'd be happy if you could provide any feedback (I'm sure it needs a lot more work and expansion, especially in the last section).

Thanks again, SPat talk 01:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comments. I've added some content on Borges' background and education. As for his influence on mathematics, I'd say it's probably too son to judge that, but I'm looking into it nonetheless. I'm planning to add maybe another section (on Chaos and randomness) before taking it live. Cheers, SPat talk 14:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A mimosa for you

A mimosa for you

Thank you for the barnstar, and especially for your very kind accompanying words.

I can tell you the feeling is entirely mutual.


Happy Otto marzo, —MistyMorn (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dostoevsky

hello,

(response to your comment) I took this German reference because:

  1. It is in public domain, so I can alter the text how I want
  2. It is in German language, so I can understand the text better
  3. It is reliable
  4. It is brief. I have read many biographies about Dostoyevsky, but none was better than this book. I understand that non-English sources should be generally avoided, but this book is just brilliant, and German is at least similar to English. However, I will try to find better sources. I removed some of the previous text as I intend to write seperate sections dealing with his personality and influences. GoPTCN 18:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Your comment on my userpage

Thank you for comments on my userpage - as a matter of interest, which articles were you referring to? You can leave further clarification on my userpage, Best wishes, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Helen Castor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radio 4 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 17 - new article issue

Thanks for the suggestion - I have corrected (I think...) the missing references in Luanda Sul. Smileguy91 (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lodge/Faulks

Hi! Thank you for your message, I am new at this so it's good to know I'm heading in vaguely the right direction! I do realise the Lodge and Faulks pages still need a lot of work; there's so many novels to cover, it may take some time. I took quite a bit from the David Lodge page on the French Wiki, so still need to add the sources back in (or find new ones). I'll bear it in mind about the headings. Thanks. Questingbeast (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry! Thanks very much for your advice (especially pointing out the Cite button; that might make it a bit quicker!). Questingbeast (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious, thank you! I'm hoping to get back to it soon (when I've done some of my own work! ;) ) Questingbeast (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Glenday

Hello, Yes of course, Grain was shortlisted for both prizes. However, I felt it was a bit of an overkill to mention this in every sentence. He has now retired from his day job as a addictions counsellor with NHS Highland and whilst deleting this from his profile, I think i may have managed to lose his picture. Can you please have a look? you sorted this for me before, i think. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erika Glenday (talk • contribs) 16:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I replaced the image. The file image name is fixed, so if you change it a little, it won't show the image you wish. I know the file name is misleading (computers, eh!) The worry with poets is notability. If some passing enthusiastic editor thinks John hasn't achieved enough to have his own article, said editor might nominate it for deletion and said article might go the way of all things. John's won major UK prizes and is one of our great contemporary poets, so let it be known, say I. It would be great to add more detail about his life and work. He shall rise to the top of my list. I hope all is well with you. All best wishes Span (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is kind and very helpful. I will pass on your comments to the man himself. (Erika Glenday (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Highbeam?

Hi Span - Love the swallows! Maybe a highbeam would suit? —MistyMorn (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this - I appreciate the thought. It would indeed suit. I have thought about Questia for ages. I hope all is well with you. 23:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hunky dory, thanks. Just one brief bout of bird flu (presumably) on return from southern climes. Back up to slothful speed again soon... —MistyMorn (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Conan Doyle

"Images are near the text re the date they were taken," eh? How, for instance, does the picture of the statue in Crowborough relate to the section "Correcting injustice" either chronologically or topically? And the Paget drawing of Sherlock Holmes may be appropriate in the Holmes article, but it is mere window dressing in the Conan Doyle article. In my browser, at least, the ACD article is disfigured by several patches of white space as it stands. Deor (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not such a grand jump to have a picture of Holmes on ACD's article as it is what ACD is famous for. The image of the Doyle's statue seems to make more sense where it is than gracing the reference section. Both on Firefox and Safari the article looks fine. Does formatting often change from browser to browser? How would editors know what readers might see?Span (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Coren's birth year

I noticed you undid my edit on Victoria Coren's birth year, citing the reason as 'weak source'. You might wish to note the following: The Victoria Elizabeth Coren in the Birth Index (Hammersmith, Q3 1972, Mother's maiden name Kasriel) IS her. There is only 1 Victoria Coren appearing in the birth records for England and Wales from 1761 to 2006 (both on Ancestry.co.uk and Findmypast.com). The only 2 people whose surnames were Coren and mother's maiden surname Kasriel at any time were Victoria Elizabeth Coren and Giles Robin P Coren (1969 Hammersmith). The only marriage has between a male Coren and a female Kasriel was between Alan Coren and Anne D Kasriel in Marylebone Q4 1963 and it is well-documented that her brother is called Giles and her (late) father was Alan. I do this for a living (research, genealogy, people-finding). I can assure you that births are NEVER registered in the year before they occur. I can also add that journalists often get this sort of detail wrong (often by looking on Wikipedia). Do you have a subscription to Ancestry or Findmypast? If not, please don't contradict people who do. Iantnm (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the Coren talk page. Span (talk) 12:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will definitely share that cup of tea with you

Thank you for making me smile on the day when I was starting to think twice about this whole Wikipedia thing, and reassuring me that there is kindness here. ~ Kimelea (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Manik Sarkar

Hi Span: I've resolved your AN/I request [1] by warning the most recent IP, tidying the article and semi-protecting the page (since the copyvio seems to have been added mainly by new accounts/IPs). Let me know if you need anything else doing to it. --Tristessa (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tristessa Span (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re my edits

Hi Span, No I'm English,I usually preview everything before I save the page,not sure what grammatical corrections you refer.I always check that the reference info links etc work correctly after I have edited a page.I've been an editor here over six years so not sure I am with you on the points you are making.I usually add info into pre-existing pages,only rarely creating a new page but of course will be extra careful with future edits which as you say are in my main specilalised interest area of poetry Ichthys58 (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichthys58 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page. Span (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Span,for amending my oversights (another senior moment). I was not aware of the space convention on , . and have noted your other comments for future reference.Rgds Ichthys58 (talk) 08:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ELs

Hello, I really appreciate your commentary regarding the external links/spam conversation. I understand the worry about users caring more about promoting their publication over the substance of the information being linked. I will recommend to my editor that she consider the most useful interviews to contribute (like say the Pablo Neruda one which is really great) and spread our editing efforts outside of what is included in the magazine. Thanks again for your input--it really clarified the situation for me. (I hope I'm posting in the right place...I'm still pretty new at this.) Best, Christina InternMemorious 02:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristinaLForbes (talk • contribs)

Replied on your talk Span (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Atkinson

I'm not sure what kind of rollback you wanted to make, but the actual outcome was that you simply rolled back to the anon IP's last edit diff here. I didn't read that person's edits as vandalism but rather as somewhat unencyclopedic and POV, and tried to clean it up rather than revert. I'm not sure how we proceed now... if I reapply my edits, it would simply undo your revert. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Span (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One-off

Greetings Spanglej. I hope I am communicating with the right feature/device - I am unfamiliar with this level of Wiki participation.

I made a minor edit to the article on "TED..." I changed an obvious error: "one-off" to "one-of". Shortly thereafter you reverted the change, with the comment: "but it's wrong." "One-off" is a term with no meaning to me - the closest ones are either "one-of" or "on-off", and the latter wouldn't make much sense in this case. "One-of" means a single thing - a set of one, if you will. "On-off" means a thing with only two options, namely either on or off - or in a wider view, either positive or negative.

What exactly could "one-off" mean?

I chose not to reject your re-edit, which apparently is an option (I've never used it), as this was not my article and a minor matter. Is "TED..." your article? I only edit occasionally and do not wish to become more intimately involved in the contribution side, although I do make monetary donations.

I look almost exclusively to Wiki and fix glaring errors when I see them. If articles start becoming loaded with the incorrect "they're"/"their" or other net-common illiteracy, I might as well go back to conventional sources like Encyclopedia Britannica.

Please revisit your edit and reconsider for yourself. WayneLBurnham (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Butting in): Wayne, "one-off" is mostly British English and it means "one-time" or "one-shot". Look here: [2]. --Kenatipo speak! 21:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'First off', apologies for not being more explanatory in my edit summary. 'One off' is a common phrase in British English - as in 'a one off tennis match' (one time only) or 'a one off discount: today only'. Having said that, I don't think the hyphen is needed. Thanks to Kenatipo for adding the dictionary link. You ask if TED is 'my article". There is no such thing. There is no ownership on Wikipedia, anyone can edit pretty much anything and should indeed step in, as you did, if they think there is a glaring error. (See WP:OWNERSHIP for more details. Thanks for checking in. I hope you enjoy editing here. If you have any more questions, please ask. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both on the "one-off"/"one-of" edit in the "TED..." article! I see I was incorrect in assuming this was an error. That was a fascinating glimpse into a phrase's history. While "one-off" is not an error, I must note, despite Miriam-Webster's entry and the NYT article, neither is "one-of." (I also don't necessarily agree on the use of a hyphen. I've used this phrase, which is pronounced distinctly differently from "one-off" as long as I can remember in this past half century and never hyphenated it.) As a number of the participants in that thread noted, it is a contraction of "one of a kind," and is easily as "legitimate" a phrase as "one-off" and in far greater usage, at least in the various parts of the US I've lived in. As both phrases seem to have arisen during living memory, "one of" has as great or greater claim to legitimacy as it is based on a far more universal concept rather than the somewhat obscure source of a mold used once in a casting foundry for "one-off." Fortunately, America has no official language and all of us are free to coin and use our own phrases and colloquialisms. Having a British parent born only shortly after the oldest date "one-off" was noted, I had a good source of personal reference. She also had never used nor encountered "one-off" before and frequently used "one of." We seem to have an example of parallel evolution in language here: one concept expressed by two very similar looking phrases, but from entirely different origins and with distinct pronunciations. On the ancillary subject, I do understand Wiki is not a proprietary concept, but most articles do have a single or group of originating authors. I don't know which term the main author of that article had in mind, but their usage was correct and I was unfamiliar with it. Even at this age, you learn something new every day! WayneLBurnham (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Respectfully, I am having an issue with an article "MUHAMMAD" at WIKIPEDIA.I am a Muslim and representative of Islam.I am having problem with the images of our beloved Prophet uploaded in the article.The images of the Holy Prophet are not used any where in Islam,even the movies which are subjected to the Islamic history have not figured The Holy Prophet.These images are pinching for Muslims. I request you on the behalf of whole Islamic nation to remove these images kindly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.174.154 (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. Wikipedia is currently formulating policy in this matter and inviting community responses. Talk:Muhammad/images is dedicated to discussing this question. It is the best place to outline your views so that maybe taken into account. Thank you Span (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for your congratulations. I'm going to do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Georgy Malenkov

You are talking about the lack of neutrality in the article, right??? If so, yes, I can probably check, and fix, the Georgy Malenkov article.. --TIAYN (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you made changes and reverts and the IP put back in a lot without refs, with duff English and much POV. You seemed to have a bit of an edit battle going and I lose track of what decent material is left. I know the IP made a mess of Brosdky but seems to be enthusiastic, adding in some salient facts, if unformated or properly ref'd. It's a highly sensitive biog, hard, perhaps, to pitch neutrally. I know nothing of Malenkov. I'm just interested in pulling out the dross and getting it back to some kind of stable, accurate enough state. Any help with that is appreciated. Span (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of cabbages and submarines

I suck a toe in the water...

Hope you're doing ok
MistyMorn (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit to be a little puzzled. It had me stumped for quite a while. I wondered if this was a little too much information or a Guardian cryptic crossword clue of sorts. 'ISATITW'. After considering this for some time this afternoon it struck me that maybe you 'stuck a toe in the water'. I'm happy to assume the latter. Thanks for your input on the article. Things seemed to have settled down a bit (for now). You have a good effect on WPland. Best wishes (ps If you have hurt yourself in the bath, calling a doctor might be the best bet). Span (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoooaps, dot's kinda socksy... I moxed my mitaphors, and I just spitted a tyto toe [3]! —MistyMorn (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rene and co. are a great antidote to the political sniping. Thanks for that. Span (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh 'eck! [4] —MistyMorn (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please answer that goose. Span (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replied by umail. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment about Christodoulos

Thanks for your comment about Christodoulos NealeFamily (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Indian soaps

Thanks, but I dont really work on this topic! I have been reviewing a few soaps as part of Tag & Assess 2012 running @ WP:India. IMO, TAM ratings should not be mentioned at all, having them as a list is encyclopaedic, at most one mention of the current ratings in the infobox should be enough. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also see some Copy-vio problems on Indian soaps and have raised the problem at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyvios_on_Indian_Television_articles. You can comment there or help point out more. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of these articles are chockablock with copyright vio. I'll check in with the linked article. Thanks Span (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These daily soaps. I don't find most of them notable enough to even have on Wikipedia. Most of them would fail WP:GNG. But WP:TVSHOW is so lenient. If aired on national TV, its notable. What doesn't that cover? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of these articles are in such a mess that they shouldn't be around at all, between notability, copyright vio, appalling, illiterate English, lack of RSs/lack of any sources at all, COI... I could go on. They are like a WP sink where robust editors have given up walked away because they are so bad but high traffic and essentially being used as promo daily by the networks. Couldn't most be deleted for lack of an RS? I find that articles on Indian towns are the same - mostly in a shocking state. These annexes need to be spotlit and cleaned up, no doubt. Span (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TVSHOW should be changed. I am nominating many "List of XYZ episodes" for AfDs. These dailies go on for years. We don't want all that junk that happened in every episode. Plus these editors are all like Single-purpose accounts. Cant even reason with them. Should we take this to Wikipedia talk:Notability (media)?
The case with towns and villages is also bad. I will raise that on talk page. We might need some mass drive to clean these articles. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#TV_serial_related_articles §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hepburn TFA

Hey Span. I've prepared a draft for Kate's TFA nomination, and posted it on the article talk page. It would be great if you could take a look? Hope all is well. --Lobo (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for commenting, it's definitely useful to get someone else's thoughts. I pasted what you said into the article talk page and responded, just on the off chance that it inspires other editors to comment. And it's a bit more "proper" to keep article related discussions there.
Yeah, I definitely focussed heavily on that page. Some people spread their energy and work on making a range of pages "decent"; I seem to prefer investing everything into one and making it as good as possible. My new project is Charlie Chaplin. I've started on it and I think I'm gonna be as dedicated to it as I was to KH. I find his life so interesting, and I desperately want him to have a page that communicates how important he was. It's exciting to have a new project that I care about as much! It was fun developing the Hepburn page, and so satisfying when it all came together (the crowing point will be the TFA day, of course), so I'm looking forward to doing it again with CC. :) --Lobo (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Gary Busey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maneater (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JCusack

Small thing 'mongst lots good here, under Stalking incident, but "plead" as past participle (I've just learned it to be called) of "plead"? The Wiktionary def'n is pretty clear; and in agreement with my opinion on the subject. May-y-be the English usage "pleaded"; but I'd hope just "pled". As it was before your edit. Any thoughts? Swliv (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Anna Roy. You have new messages at Talk:Saas Bina Sasural.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thich Nhat Hanh

Hi, I just posted the following question at the Thich Nhat Hanh talkpage (then noticed your recent reply in a previous thread so I thought I would ask here too): I'm trying to locate something Thich Nhat Hanh said awhile back about the tricky role of peacemaker/peacekeeper, about getting caught in the middle and/or getting heat from both sides if the mediation doesn't go well. Can anyone help locate this? I've tried various Google searches and come up short. Thanks. (By the way, I think it would make a great addition to the article). El duderino (abides) 07:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Robert Hass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Rafael (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

I will try my best to better the plot! --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 09:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit confussed

Hi,

I got a message being told not to put up further links to a spesific website, The Art Renewal Center, but they are a large non profit organization that has thousands of images by artists also talked about on the Wikipedia webiste. In many cases they have more images and more information then the other external links provided. When I was looking through Wikipedia I noticed that on a lot of the artists pages, they did not have Art Renewal as a source. I wanted to help guide people to another usful source of informaiton. If you check up on the links I posted you will see that they lead to pages with a lot of beneficial information and the desriptions I put next to each link as far as how many images provided are completly acurate. Although my intent is to add a lot of beneficial stuff to Wiki, I am confussed why I cannot start where I see gaps and then move on to other things as well. If adding links from these artists pages to the Art Renewal Center will help viewers become more educated and be directed to more information, why have I been told not to continue to do this?

Please let me know if I can continue. I believe if you check out the artrenewal.org website, you will see it is a valuble resource to people interested in the artists talked about on Wiki.

All the best,

Karacolon (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)K.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karacolon (talk • contribs) 22:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I just relized that all the links I added, only on 24 pages, have been removed. I spent a lot of time adding them in, and if you had clicked on the links you would have seen that they were all completly valid and usful sources. I am not sure what to do. I clearly do not want to be doing work only to have it canceled out for no reason other then they happen to be different sections of the same, legitimate source.

Lewis Carroll, galump and Kipling

Hello,

I was doing some research on Lewis Carroll, particularly the word "galumphing," and noticed that Rudyard Kipling was noted at Jabberwocky#Possible interpretations of words as having later used the word. I searched Kipling's works and couldn't find a usage, and I checked the given reference and couldn't find any mention of Kipling. I tracked the edits back you, so I was wondering if you either knew where Kipling uses "galumphing," or which sources says he does. Thanks for your help! Scientific29 (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your message. This is the source much used in WP article. It says that 'galumph' is used in Stalky and Co. My mistake for not adding it in to the article. This site gives a Kipling reference too, from The Empire and the Century: A Series of Essays on Imperial Problems and possibilities by Charles Sydney Goldman, referring to: Rudyard Kipling (1905) "Elephants stand sphinx- like, belly-deep in weed, hippos galumph and bellow in their play. White clouds of ibis drift across the weed. ...". I will add in the missing cite and can hunt about for more detail if you're stuck. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much; that's all I need! Lexic.us seems like a great dictionary, too. Thank you again and happy editing! Scientific29 (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Galatians, gallipots and galling reserve... But no galumphs here alack. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Span – that wasn't intended as a cryptic crossword clue, but as a genuine query about galumphing, or possible lack of it, in Stalky & co. (Actually, I'd been hoping to spot some galiphants or suchlike among the gals... but, hey, no cigars!) Also, I wasn't sure whether the verse quotation was original Kipling or Runyonesque pastiche. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland may be wrong. It may be worth putting a query on the Kipling or Stalky & Co. pages. Or maybe Scientific29 has some insight to shed on the matter. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is a pretty strong source. I'm happy to take out the Kipling mention on the Jabberwocky page if needed. Span (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your vigilance is always appreciated

I left a note of thanks on January's talk page regarding 90.218.255.152 and I wanted to do the same for you. These IPS are often more frustrating than outright vandals as many of their entries fly under the radar. Your vigilance is much appreciated. Of course, the biggest mistake they made is not knowing that sleeping is something that everyone does. It napping that is the hobby and I may just go and indulge in it right now :-) Cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 20:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use Of Indian English

See, each country has their own English. India follows UK's English but at the same time has its own unique English. Like:

  • US:Color
  • UK & India:Colour

Oxford English Dictionary describes Indian English as: "The role of English within the complex multilingual society of India is far from the straightforward together with Hindi it is used across the country but it can also be a speaker's first, second, or third language, and its features may depend heavily on their ethnicity and caste. Indian English's grammar has many distinguishing features, of which perhaps the best-known are the use of the present continuous tense, as in "He is having very much of property" and the use of isn't it as a ubiquitous question tag: "We are meeting tomorrow, isn't it?" The first example reflects another characteristic of the language, which is to include intrusive articles such as in or of in idiomatic phrases. verbs are also used differently, with speakers often dropping a preposition or object altogether: "I insisted immediate payment", while double possessives-"our these prices" (instead of the British English "these prices of ours")-are commonplace. --Jagadhatri(২০১২) 16:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are standard levels of comprehensibility. You wrote "Manyata getting to know Jai's intentions is hurt"; "7(even a sdmall problem occurs)"; "At the same time she is thankful to Mona to get to know the truth and her daughter's dos." These make no sense and it's not because of 'Indian English'. Literate English is not optional here. Readers must be able to understand what is written. Span (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so you may change it and if to talk about that Forums are not reliable sources then references cannot be added in the soap opera articles as only a few acceptable sources may be found.--Jagadhatri(২০১২) 06:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Do you know hot add an clickable image map to Wiki articles?--Jagadhatri(২০১২) 09:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea what you are referring to. Span (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re

The IP was blocked for 72 hours, so the block expired a few days ago. My block message says "temporarily blocked", which is what happens if you forget to add the time to the template. I'll have a look at the IP's edits in a little bit. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Span (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

acid death

source facebook i wrote to dennis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.158.250 (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Malden was proud of his Serbian roots

I wonder why you ignored one of my recent edit summaries, when I stated specifically, "Please do not revert this unless you have contributed to the discussion at "Karl Malden was a Serbian American". Serbian origin was relevant to subject's notability." That trumps any rule you have cited at WP:MOSBIO. The issue is not his Serbian-American description, but where exactly those "Serbian" origins start. All the evidence points to his father coming from E. Herzegovina, but we are leaving that part out (country of origin) precisely because it is controversial. The borders around there are probably ill-defined, and every country in the immediate vicinity wants to claim him as theirs. About the "Serbian" origin, however, there is no doubt. As I stated in the Talk Page, Malden's notability was infused with this origin, right to the very end of his life. That's certainly different from Tom Selleck, who has not stressed that part of his background, as Malden definitely did. Malden constantly regretted having to change his name from Sekulovich. --Skol fir (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's My Birthday!!

My B'day Cake
Hi!! Today is my b'day and I though of sharing this sweet gift with you!! Arnesh(২০১২) 16:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]