Hello, Esme Shepherd, 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 talk 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 {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! We're so glad you're here! Sadads (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Esme Shepherd. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SeraphWiki was:
This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kishen Kower and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kishen Kower, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KJP1 was:
I'm afraid it is no more suitable than when it was declined earlier. It is not even clear to me what it is about. The language is not encyclopedic. The references, none of which can be checked, are all over 100 years old, which suggests it as not been the subject of any recent academic study, probably because it's not Notable.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kishen Kower and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kishen Kower, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Krishna Kumari (princess). Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Kishen Kower and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Kishen Kower, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
Hello, Esme Shepherd. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. LizRead!Talk!19:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Heath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Singleton. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Great to see the work you are doing - well done. If you need support then consider Women in Red, but it looks to me as if you are making valuable contributions. Thank you from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
? I have not linked any reproductive prints and having examined all requirements I can find nothing wrong with what I have done. The reason for this link is that there is no other way of connecting the artist and the engraver to a multi-media artwork consisting of an engraved picture and a poem that is integral with it. Such artworks can only appear in wikisource and, perforce, not under the artist or engraver, but the poet. I see you have removed my external link on Rembrandt but cannot for the life of me see any justification for doing so, the link was to an external work that incorporated art by that painter, not to a print. Esme Shepherd (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be someone who knows about art and yet you are strangely ignorant on this issue. How can a poem be a reproductive print? The poem and print are one. Thus is not just my personal opinion. I refer you to https://www2.shu.ac.uk/corvey/cw3/ContribPage.cfm?Contrib=23
Note in the first paragraph: 'The small amount of her work that is generally available exists in the form of collections and anthologies that encompass only the written components of her art. These compilations of verbal texts only do not preserve either the nature of the substance of Landon's mature work, which typically consisted of both a visual text, such as an engraving, and the verbal text of an accompanying poem. Moreover, not only is this verbal material divorced from its visual components but, also it is often skewed chronologically and contextually.'
and, in a subsequent section: 'The specific reference here is to L.E.L.'s poetry, which typically consists of a poetic response to a visual stimulus that is printed beside the poetry .... The reviewer describes the symbiotic relationship that is created between the visual stimulus, often a work of art such as a painting or an engraving, and the poet's imagination. Energized by "genius," a synthesis occurs within the poet that produces a metaphysical overlay that is then projected via the poetry to the audience.'
Dibert-Himes also refers back to Sarah Sheppard who knew the poet and wrote: 'How did pictures ever seem to speak to her soul! how would she seize on some interesting characteristic in the painting or engraving before her, and inspire it with new life, till that pictured scene spread before you in bright association with some touching history or spirit-stirring poem! L.E.L.'s appreciation of painting, like that of music, was intellectual rather than mechanical,--belonging to the combinations rather than to the details; she loved the poetical effects and suggestive influences of the Arts, although caring not for their mere technicalities.'
What you call "visual text" (!!) is I presume a reproductive print, or if it is not you are not describing it well. Either way, these links are WP:UNDUE on the biographies of the original artists. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are the final arbiter on these matters, so I have to accept your judgement. Rembrandt obviously did not know his painting was to be used in this way, although Raddon did--he was paid to produce an engraving to be combined with an illustrative poem. I have always tried to stick to facts and I will continue to do so. So, if we were dealing with music, you are saying that any link to a lied would be WP:UNDUE on the biography of the original poet. However, in that age, especially in the gift book market, artists were commissioned to paint pictures for use in this way and I cannot see how you can claim a link to be WP:UNDUE in such cases. If an external link cannot be made to an artist's productions, what else is it for?
You seem surprised by the expression "visual text" for the engraving, which is not mine. However, you ought to be able to see that this is the thought processes of the observer, which are composed of language and therefore in effect text. These differ for every viewer and it is the synthesis of these thoughts with those presented by the poet that constitutes the purpose of these artworks. Esme Shepherd (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the "final arbiter", & you are welcome to raise the matter, on Talk:Rembrandt. But I think you would find other editors taking my view. If the re-usage were not "undue" it should be included in the main text, which would often be appropriate for poets set to music by a major composer. But this was nearly 200 years after Rembrandt's death and only one of thousands of re-uses of his work of various sorts. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your clarity, I find your final comments reasonable and fair in the case of Rembrandt, so I am happy with your judgment. I hope you have found my comments at least educational, though if you have studied art then you probably knew it all already, even those "visual texts"! Esme Shepherd (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tehri Garhwal district, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Cox.
I agree with you that this section needs expansion, but I have cut back your edit because you haven't provided any evidence that this poem is a significant example of James Cook's cultural legacy. There are literally thousands of poems and other artistic works about Cook from the time of his first voyage. Indeed, he was one of the most famous people in the Empire. If you are interested in James Cook, I would be happy to work with you to expand this section, focusing on the most important artistic and literary works about Cook, and his impact on popular culture. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly want to press the point but although you have made the entry shorter, it is now totally inaccurate. Landon was not a sentimental romantic poet by any stretch of the imagination. Unfortunately, views have been expressed on her for nearly two centuries that are based on a complete ignorance of what she wrote. This is in large part due to misogyny, which was rife, especially in the nineteenth century. In this modern age, aren't we supposed to be sweeping aside these forms of discrimination. I feel obliged to correct your error and recommend you read Himes, Glenn T. (1998). L.E.L: The Literary Gazette Collection. Corvey CW3. Esme Shepherd (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a reference from an authorative source describing her as a sentimental romantic poet, and the Cook poem certainly fits that description. But my major concern is that this is a very minor poem which is only tangentially about Cook (it's actually about her relationship with her brother). The link you provided shows an illustration of a garden scene, not of Cook. Do you have a facsimile copy of the actual book which shows the full page and illustration of Cook? Are you sure the poem wasn't written in the early 1830s about her brother and then recycled for the book you cite? No matter how strongly you feel about the alleged treatment of Landon, wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. This article is about Cook, not evangilising for a favorite poet. Please see the Talk page on Cook. I'm happy to take up the discussion there so others can state their view. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your source I fear is out of date, derivative and by no means authoritative. This is the trouble with this citation system. You should take more care with it and you are still making the mistake of calling it a poem; it is a poetical illustration to a picture, in this case a portrait and not the illuminated capital you have confused it with. It was not Landon's habit to describe the picture in her illustration but to write on the associations it brought to mind. In this case it was a personal memory, but that is not usually the case. I have now doubled the link to show both halves of this, so you can now access directly the portrait of Cook. However, to appreciate this work, it is necessary to open both halves of the citation at the same time. As Landon was one of the most widely read poets of the day, I don't know why you persist in calling her a minor poet. Have you read Glenn T. Himes yet? However you may describe her work, throughout her short life, she was an innovator. Also, the publication date is 1837, not 1838. Annuals are always produced for the Christmas market, as you know. Esme Shepherd (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for February 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Miller (engraver), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Austin.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I do not wish to edit war. However, as you full well know much of the present content of the Salome article is false and someone ought to go through it and weed out the nonsense. That she was an innocent young girl is almost incontrovertible. Wiki should not be a haven for out of date misogynistic views.
Agendas of any kind, including those related to correcting "misogynistic views" are not welcome. You might want to read for the first time or refresh your reading with the following as a reminder: [1] A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I will let things stand but I still ask why all the previous nonsense was allowed to be published and why it remains? Can you answer me that?
Not exactly my opinion, as I am referring to the gospels. You seem to of the opinion that the gospels are not gospel! For instance, the gospels (both of them) say that Salome was a young girl.
When it comes to editing Wikipedia, our POV, our opinions, should remain undetectable. Which, in my case, they are because I haven't said what my opinion is. Nor have I given my opinion about the Gospels, the Bible, Christianity, God, Jesus Christ, and so on. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concrete Poetry
I won't repeat the warning at the head of the previous thread, but it applies to your edits to the article mentioned here. One of the firm rules on Wikipaedia is the requirement for reliable sources. In this case you need to show that someone has stated that there is an equivalence between the bridge's three-stranded rope and the verses accompanying the illustration, which is not immediately obvious. Otherwise your comments count as WP:OR. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to push this case further. Because I have studied Landon's poetry in depth, I can see for myself the unusual format of the verses and that combined with her attached text which states that the rope is three-stranded tells me that is no accident. It certainly is immediately obvious to me. In due course someone with a more academic background will come forward and support what I am saying but for the moment it must lie between me and the gatepost.
