User talk:Midnightdreary/Archive 3

Melville

Please read my comments on the discussion page thoroughly. I included comments in two sections so perhaps you did not see both. The Melville Revival specifically involves a growth of interest in Melville in the 1920s so it is entirely appropriate to provide examples of works involved in this event. However, being in academia, I can comfortably say that in the case of the publications from 1949 and 1950, they are would not be accepted for submission to a reputable academic journal for the very reason I stated on the discussion page. The 1990 publication is also be less than ideal for reasons I discussed on the discussion page. This might seem overly harsh or critical, but if wikipedia is to be respected as an encyclopedia, it should be held to the same standards as any other academic project. We should not be citing something simply because we can. We should also be critically (in an academic sense) considering the source of our citations. --DixitAgna (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you're the only one who has an issue with this information. I don't see how these sources fail the requirements of WP:RS. Can we leave this in and discuss, rather than you making the final assessment? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with having a discussion on this. I am sorry if my removal of the content in question has been upsetting you, as I now suspect it has. That is not my intention. Please understand that I am not trying to censor the content in question, as I myself believe the argument for homo-erotic themes in his writing is a compelling one. If the outdated references were replaced more recent ones from neutral and scholarly sources, I would be perfectly satisfied. It is just from a scholarly standpoint, the 1949 and 1950 references in particular really need to be replaced. In a very literal sense they do not fail WP:RS requirements, but neither do 1950 articles from the New England Journal of Medicine or JAMA on treatments for heart disease. I think it is safe to say that no one would be citing those articles, be they from the top journals in their field, in an article on treatments for heart disease. Again, we should have much better citations.--DixitAgna (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your removal of content that bothers me, but your lack of interest in collaboration, which is the spirit of the project. Your discussion here is a show of good faith, though, so I appreciate your taking the time. I think the only way we can presume that the '49/'50 references are not worthy is if their research and analysis has been disproven over time. I have seen no evidence of that. Certainly, new scholarship has come out, and that stuff can be included in addition to this earlier analysis. As an alternative, you could have also tagged with one of the templates that request further citations for verifiability (see WP:CTT), though I'd still disagree with that. Your mass removal of content despite objections was a bit frustrating, and I admit it. I hope we can continue improving and building this article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longfellow

The sources were by virtue of the sources located within the respective WP pages. Of course there are honors to Longfellow all over the world to justify not giving undue weight. Then I'll ask you, shall we include mention of places named after Longfellow? Such as Longfellow, Minneapolis. Certainly in the John Greenleaf Whittier article lists these places. .:DavuMaya:. 21:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, sources, sources. Sorry if my removal of your additions seemed harsh. Remember that Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiability. And, of course, Wikipedia articles fail as reliable sources. And just cuz Whittier's article lists them doesn't mean they should; it just means someone hasn't gotten around to fixing that article yet. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Takk, I am aware of WP policy, my edits were in WP:GOODFAITH and perhaps we're not connecting here. Assuming good faith, I meant, the sources are within those articles and I hadn't had time to place them in the article. And with good faith, you should probably mark citation needed (see Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Verifiability_and_sources on how to use them) instead of immediately reverting another editor, especially if you do not attempt a talkpage discussion to compromise (heres a guide: Wikipedia:Citations#Dealing with citation problems). It seems you are in doubt over my assertions. While I don't really care what you're going to apparently allow in the page, at least you can glance at the primary sources to understand the impetus of edits:

• Lake Nokomis: [1] [2]
• Longfellow Minneapolis: [3]
• Longfellow House [4]
• Longfellow Gardens [5]
• Postcard blurb of Minnehaha Falls [6]
• and you seem to be in question of the existence of Minnehaha Falls (or if Longfellow actually referred to our falls): [7]
• Minnehaha Falls Historic District [8]

[9] Compromise, compromise, compromise. .:DavuMaya:. 21:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense was meant by my actions. I do get a little protective of the articles I have brought to Good Article status... I'd suggest, too, that a fact-tag automatically compromises its GA status. But, it's great to see sources, so great job there. But, I'd also make the argument that since there are literally dozens of homes based on Longfellow's (the most recent was completed in 2006, I believe), it's hard to see why this particular one is notable. By the way, remember the process: Be Bold, someone reverts, then you talk - which, incidentally, is exactly what we are doing here. Remind me though: What assertion of yours am I doubting? I never suggested what you added was untrue! :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it's worth considering adding some of this information to more relevant articles, such as Song of Hiawatha for sites with names inspired by the poem or referenced therein. You may have also noticed that Longfellow National Historic Site already mentions the house replica. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blaaaaaaahhh, sorry I was being vicarious there, you didn't, its just some editor accused me a few days ago of purposely adding false things in so I'm feeling sensitive lately. True, the house and specific mentions are not terribly relevant. I think some mention of nationally (or world-wide) how people have paid homage to Longfellow may be in order but I'll need time to put together the sources and research it (ie: is there like a Longfellow Center For Kids Who Can't Read Good And Who Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too? :) I shall go ahead with looking into the more directly related pages with these sources. .:DavuMaya:. 22:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize. I actually think there's a good chance that I can get a decent source that says something as simple as: "There are a bunch of replicas of HWL's house." That might be a good solution. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and kudos

I just wanted to say thanks for putting up with the copyright inquisition on Nathaniel Parker Willis. I really enjoyed the article, by the way - that period of American history is oft-neglected, particularly the cultural aspects, and I really enjoyed the article and the tangents that the links led me off to. Best wishes to you - Kelly ^hi! 22:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thank you for showing an interest in a very neglected figure in American literary history! Besides, I have seen much worse on those FAC reviews. I keep a flak jacket near my laptop just in case. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I can ever help in copyright reviews or image searches, please drop me a note - I would be happy to help. Kelly ^hi! 23:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fort Jackson (Virginia)

Sure, I'm willing to throw a little time at the article and see if it can be made GA-worthy. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've addressed the things you mentioned at Talk:Fort Jackson (Virginia)/GA1. If you're still interested in passing or failing this GA, feel free to take another look at the article and let me know what else I need to work on. Thanks for letting me know about it! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pass! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death of EAP

I've translated the article to spanish, where i'm presenting it to our FA process, after several additions. I've wanted to thank you, because without your base structure and edition, this could not have happened. Cheers! Gizmo II (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Best of luck to you! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ravenstahl's GA review

Hello. I noticed that you seem to be a pretty serious and experienced editor, and I was wondering if you could take a look at the Luke Ravenstahl article again while its GA review is currently on hold. According to the GA review, it is lacking in the Manual of Style department, as well as in the lead. I have done what I could to fix the article by fleshing out the 2007 election section. And unlike me, you seem generally familiar with the MoS. I see that you have helped shepherd more than a few article to GA and FA status, and we could use your experience. Thanks!--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the Luke Ravenstahl article. Can you suggest any better headings? --TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to see that you disagree with the GA promotion. I agree that there are some problems, and I'll be working to fix them over the next few months. Still, thanks for the help.--TheZachMorrisExperience (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poe's bibliography

Hi there, it's me again. About the bibliography, was there a specific reason you didnt include many of the poems listed here? Specifically: several of the "To -" series. Cheers, Gizmo II (talk) 02:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I finally took care of this stuff. I was having a hard time substantiating some of them; it seems that page came right from the list of works on Poe's page at Wikisource and most of them aren't sourced. If there are extra ones, it's likely they are alternative names. The full bibliography will only list them once unless they are significantly different enough to be considered two separate poems. Thanks for alerting me to this discrepancy. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:To the Stars (novel)/GA1

I think I need a teensy bit more time on this, I would like to try to address a couple of your points a bit more, but would like to look further for additional secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources first. Another 7 days would be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time. Consider it on hold indefinitely (within reason, of course). Thanks for letting me know. --Midnightdreary (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please wait a bit, I will get to this soon, just been busy lately but will address it, thanks. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I have checked and re-checked through multiple database archives and have not come across any other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources that discuss this work's potential progress as a film production. I do not feel that WP:GA status should not be given if no further discussion of this particular aspect of Hubbard's work exists in secondary sources - on the other hand it is possible that that info is out there but I haven't been able to find more on it after searching through multiple news and reference archives. Let me know what you think, or if you have any other further input at Talk:To the Stars (novel)/GA1 and I will do my best to address it. Thanks again for taking the time to review, Cirt (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- responded to your suggestion at Talk:To the Stars (novel)/GA1. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wadsworth-Longfellow House

Thanks for fixing my goof! Lvklock (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poe

Hi, after seeing your name on the history of many Poe articles, I've checked your user page and seen that you're a Poe expert. The Poe portal and Poe-related featured articles are wonderful. I myself intend to have a featured Poe in Turkish wiki, but for the time being I'm just sticking around translating the poems and stories. I don't know how long it will take but if I can translate all Poe stuff here, maybe I will create a Poe portal like the one here. Well, I just wanted to thank you for all the Poe-related articles that I can transate... İyivikiler... homonihilis ileti 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for showing a commitment to Poe on the Turkish Wikipedia!! I wish you all the best! My hope is to eventually make the Poe Portal run on its own and just randomize content... if I can figure it out. Let me know if I can ever be a help with what you are doing! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR experiment

Dear Midnightdreary, I'm writing in hopes of enlisting your aid in a four-month experiment at Peer Review (PR). The success of the experiment will depend on finding at least 10 editors willing to review at least one article a week through the end of October 2008. The experiment will employ a streamlined review process designed to insure that every nominator who seeks a review gets one and that reviewers do not waste time doing long reviews for nominators who do not respond to an initial short review.

The way it works is this: (1) Choose any article at Peer Review that lacks a review. Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date, especially the backlog list, is still a good place to find such articles. (2) Provide a short partial review based on your initial observations and wait to see if the nominator responds. Examples of short reviews can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Foreign relations of India/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Ed Stelmach/archive1. (3) If the nominator does not respond, the review is done. (4) If the nominator responds, continue the review as you see fit.

The experiment will require no noticeable administration. However, if you plan to participate, it would be helpful if you posted a brief note to Wikipedia talk:Peer review to that effect.

At the end of October, we can see how the experiment turned out and whether this process or some modification of it could sustain Peer Review permanently with minimal backlogs. If you can help, that would be great. If not, that's perfectly OK. We are all tremendously busy with a lot of different projects.

I have chosen to write to you in part because you've done peer reviews from the backlog during the past four months. Please forgive the form-letter nature of this note, which is more efficient than a personal note. With respect and thanks for your hard work on many projects, Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never Bet the Devil Your Head

You removed my contribution, which you describe as "original research." Surely it is easily verifiable by consulting the story itself. It is not as though I am advancing an original point of view. It is self-evident, as far as I can see. Kostaki mou (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "spoofs." I don't think this is overstating the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostaki mou (talk • contribs) 22:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George P. Morris

I see you are working to improve the Morris article. I found that image of his sheet music and couldn't resist putting it in the article. Please feel free to remove it if you don't like it there. (I love finding stuff like that! Reminds me of my days working in an old antique shop in Hyde Park, NY) - Epousesquecido (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, thanks for the award! I'll put it on my user page.:) - Epousesquecido (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Hale image

Hi, thought I would share this with you.-- I was looking for a better image of Sarah J. Hale and found a beautiful portrait of her on a page linked from Richards Free Library in Newport, NH. So I decided to call the Library and ask if they had any information about the painting. The lady said they have the painting there, in the Library, so she read me the signature and TOOK IT OFF the wall and turned it over to see the provenance - painted in 1831. Isn't that great!? This is the stuff that makes writing these articles fun! - Epousesquecido (talk)

Wow! Great to find someone so helpful! And it's a great image - and she's a gorgeous woman (though I assume the artist was a bit generous considering she was in her 40s at the time...). I know the feeling of excitement though. I actually work where the original of this image is still hanging so I see it every day! --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, I could make a guess about where you work, but I won't. It is nice that you get to see that portrait (very modern for the time), so often. It is very special, probably even more so in person. The artist, Samuel Laurence, does not have an article and neither does the artist that painted (a very young looking) Ms. Hale. Gosh, our work here is never done! :) - Epousesquecido (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller

I put all the images of Margaret Fuller in commons:Category:Margaret Fuller if you want to see what is there. - Epousesquecido (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Crane

Hi, Midnightdreary, I wanted to thank you again for your help in bringing Crane's article to GA-status. It means a lot, especially seeing as how you have personally improved so many 19th century American author bios. I'm admittedly not a fan of Hawthorne, but if I have time this week (and if no one has snatched it before then, of course), I may return the favor and review Margaret Fuller; gotta love those tragic literary figures, right? Take care, María (habla conmigo) 01:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! It has been my mission in life for the past three years or so to bring America's 19th century and its literary figures back to life, so I'm always glad to help other people doing the same. I'm surprised Hawthorne has been left untouched and unreviewed for so long but I'd love feedback on Fuller. I was swept away in as I researched her; I'm not ashamed to admit I may have developed a bit of a crush on the woman (I left flowers at her cenotaph on the anniversary of her death... my girlfriend was a bit jealous). --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review for Nathaniel Hawthorne

Howdy. I just reviewed your nom and put it on hold; my recommendations are on the talk page. Just some prose fixing up, and everything should be ship shape. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work and speedy response; Nathaniel Hawthorne is a much better article. All my concerns were resolved, so I promoted it to Good Article status. :)
If I can help you in any other way, feel free to ask! Intothewoods29 (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Boston

Thank you for clearing up those references. I always manage to mess it up. I do have a question for you though. I don't really know who to ask so I figured you'd be as good as anyone else. Should I include the casualties from the Battle of Bunker Hill in the casualties since it was during the siege? Or should I leave it the way it is now? I'm just looking for some advice. Thanks. Red4tribe (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Fern

Fanny's article definitely needs some good headers and I think the 2nd half of the 2nd paragraph (the part about all of her names) is interesting but kind of ruins the flow of that part of her bio. Maybe it should be in the lede? I have found some good details about her 3rd husband and can add some images. - Epousesquecido (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite a mess; nothing less than a substantial overhaul will salvage it. I do have a biography of Fern as well as one of her brother Nat, but I will need a couple days before I delve into the article too much. Thanks for the help! --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some work as you can see. (not sure if it is any better now) I have not added any images (probably some frontispieces of her books) yet because I am still having some problems with my computer. I don't like the image of her that is there now, yuk! but there are not a lot of choices. (Her brother was not very good to her and third husband married her daughter! wow!) - Epousesquecido (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know! She's got a fascinating story! No wonder Ruth Hall was so bitter... --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks very much for the recognition! I do what I can...Merotoker1 (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Image question

As specified in the description, it is a facsimile from 'a 1900 edition of James A. Harrison's Life and Letters of Edgar Allan Poe'. -- Nalco (talk) 04:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for letting me know. I already added that detail to the description myself about two months ago. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Cat

As a Poe expert round these parts I wonder if you had come across any resources that could be used to help improve The Black Cat (Masters of Horror episode)? I'm having a general nose around but it may be you've seen something somewhere else. (Emperor (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No problem - I thought it was worth a try. (Emperor (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Overreaction

My apologies, MD. I had no real justification in calling you patronizing. Thanks for your explanation. --Che Gannarelli (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Providence

Hi, I found this book [10], published in 1918, page 50 has some information on Margaret Fuller. Thought you might be interested. It is where I found a picture of the Greene Street School. Feel free to delete the pic if you don't like it in the article. - Epousesquecido (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspense

Ha ve you any reference about Poe as inventor of suspense, psychological horror in literature? Thank you so much. Sürrell of es:wik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.140.157 (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sürrell... sorry for the late reply! Nothing comes to mind right away regarding this particular topic, though Stephen King actually writes about Poe somewhat in his Danse Macabre book. I'm not familiar with it enough to be sure he goes on about this topic, but it's a good guess, I think. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and thanks. A pity your news. I think The Tell-Tale Heart, and mostly The Fall of the House of Usher are completely suspense stories. He started something about it along with Mr Sheridan le Fanu. Am I wrong? ;) I'm working now in this [11] for FA, translating something of yours. Thank you very much for your work and kindness. Best wishes. Sürrell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.145.6 (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could be a better help... good luck with your work, though! Poe is always a difficult subject to study! --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult but also succulent... S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.53.136.70 (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dickinson tombstone

Nice replacement at Emily Dickinson, thanks! I much prefer the newer version. Question, though: what is on top of the tombstone, do you know? Mementos of some sort? Just curious. I can't say I do much graveyard visiting, so it's all a mystery to me. :) María (habla conmigo) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Typically, well-admired figures will have all kinds of mementos left at their grave (I normally take them down for a picture but was fairly moved by the amount left for Emily D). What you see are mostly pebbles and larger stones, a few coins, a mint (still in wrapper), ribbon, and all kinds of odds and ends. If you think that's impressive, you should see the grave of Louisa May Alcott and even, on some days, Thoreau or Emerson. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How sweet! I would leave E.D. flowers, but I suppose I'm just predicable that way. Speaking of Alcott, I've considered making her article a future project. Dickinson and her were only two years apart (Alcott was born two years later and died two years later; both of them were 55 when they passed), but talk about different lives led! It would be interesting research, I think. María (habla conmigo) 12:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I typically leave stones or pennies myself, though I have left much more at the grave of Poe and I did leave flowers for Margaret Fuller. Let me know if I can be of any help on L. M. Alcott's article; she should certainly should have a better article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from you

Hello,

I received a message from you regarding an "edit" I made on the page for James Fenimore Cooper. However, I've never looked up that writer, never mind made an edit. Perhaps a mistake? I know my ISP changes my IP address from time to time...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.3.163 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again!

Hi! Just wanted to stop on by and see how you're doing! No real reason..... Okay I lie. I was wondering if you could help out on my peer review of Odwalla if you have a wikisecond to spare. Thanks! The link to the peer review is here. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 16:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re Alfred Edward Housman

The image was located to the left for some considerable time after an editor argued that it was aesthetically better to have AE "looking" at the text, in his edit summary. Nobody then, and until now, objected and it appears to have had consensus. While it may not be exactly standard, little in WP is written in stone and I think this is one of those exceptions to the rules that should be permitted - it was doing no harm as it was, anyhow. I should be grateful if you would replace the positioning, and thank you for the other attention you gave it. If you wish, I will return it to the "left" in due course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with it either way and wasn't sure if there was any history with its positioning (not to mention the TOC, which is unusual and awkward, in my opinion). I do agree that he should be looking into the text, but its an odd placement for the main image. I'll undo my actions on the image, considering no one else seems to have objected. Thanks for such a civil note! --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the understanding. Happy editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanity of Human Wishes

Many thanks for your assessment of the article on The Vanity of Human Wishes. B-class isn't bad for an article that didn't even exist 22 days ago. Nice to feel appreciated. I am not sure that there is enough notable information out there to warrant the article ever getting a higher rating, but maybe I am just unimaginative. Lexo (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Old Fordham Village article

Dear MD, Twould be great if you could delete the Old Fordham Village article. Between thee and me, we've merged into the Fordham article. The editor who started OFV is quite happy that we do so, but I don't have the time or the expertise to do a proper delete. Thanks. Bellagio99 (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the authority to delete articles. My guess is that you need a speedy delete tag or go through the AFD process. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you would mentor me in how to do a speedy delete or AFD. Bellagio99 (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for redirected, as promised. One little moment nicely dealt with in Wikiedit land. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philitas of Cos

This edit added Philitas of Cos to Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry with the comment "Added one, even if I disagree with its passing." If you have the time, could you please expand on that comment at the article's peer review page? The article has gotten better as a result of peer review after GA status, and any suggestions for further improvement are welcome. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you hadn't heard the morbid debate....

I woke up and saw this in the Times! Awadewit (talk) 15:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Actually, both Ed and Jeff are friends of mine. The debate is harmless (and is really only between those two... I'm surprised the Times was swept up in it). --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there isn't enough news elsewhere in the world. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD of Margaret Fuller

Hi, I wrote a new lead, temporarily in my user space here. Everyone has different tastes, so take or leave whatever you like or don't. :-) I suppose... the quotes should be repeated in the body text somewhere... I really wanted to put in the lead that she was the inspiration for Hester Prynne, but it was all looking just a little too long already... I also found that Fuller "was taught by her father to read the classics of six languages" on p. 93 of The Feminine Mystique, which I suppose could be put in the body text. later! Ling.Nut ^(talk—WP:3IAR) 06:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help on Washington Irving!

Sorry to be away for so long, but thanks for all your hard work getting the Washington Irving entry taken care of. I appreciate the comments we received, and wish I'd had more time to touch up a literary analysis section. It'll have to stand as it is for the moment while it gets the Good Article review, but I plan to get back to it one of these moments. I also intend to keep poking at the pages on his works -- slow going as well. But thanks for all your hard work and leadership -- you're the guiding hand on the thing, that's for sure. Federalistpapers (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GAN of Washington Irving

Awadewit's in India. If no one else gets to the article by Thursday or so, then I'll review it. (I have a little backlog to take care of between now and then) later, Ling.Nut ^(talk—WP:3IAR) 04:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the "I'm away" message on her page. No rush, really, just wanted to leave it open (and I had assumed she had forgotten; she's never left me hanging before). --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. She's top-notch. :-) If no one reviews it by Thurs. or Fri., then I will. I'm sure that anything you've written should sail through GAN. Later Ling.Nut ^(talk—WP:3IAR) 04:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA PASS with one tiny note. Good work. Ling.Nut ^(talk—WP:3IAR) 04:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eventually...

You're welcome for that award. You really do deserve a moment of silence...

Anyway, sometime in the future I'd enjoy working with you to bring Agatha Christie to FA? I don't know if you're familiar with that era, but it should be interesting. If you're not interested, just drop me a line on my talk page. Thanks! —§unday {Q} 19:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I'm busy too right now with so many other things to work on for FA, if you read my to-do there's at least 15 articles, but I'll re-notify you when I find the time. Thanks! —§unday {Q} 23:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbera FAC

I found the infobox person template has an ethnicity option, so I used that for Sicilian and nationality for American here and on the Hanna (Irish for him) article. That should solve that problem. As for referencing, I appreciate your concern, but it is a valid format and matches the one in the Hanna article, which no one objected to, so I'd like to keep them the same since they're so closely related. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poet: Valerij Nikolaevskij

Will you take, a very criticism literary work by Nikolaevskij, in russian called Диоген из бочки? Russian Wkipedia has kicked out this work(there is written a lot about democraty). It is saved in Ukrainian Wikipedia. Will you take this outstanding work by Nikolaevskij to english Wikipedia, but it is in russian. Ellijah 15:01 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.13.14 (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I wouldn't be much help. My expertise is very limited to American literature from the 19th century. I wish I could help more, though. Consider leaving a message at WP:POETRY, any maybe another member of the project could help. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Work

MidnightDreary, I just noticed the excellent work you did on the Edward Coate Pinkney page and wanted to congratulate you! He's a personal favorite of mine, and I'm pleased to see he's getting proper representation here. I wonder whether we might add some information about the various ways of spelling his middle name, with perhaps redirects? It's something that's always confused me. Algabal (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about his middle name a bit myself; it was misspelled often, even during his lifetime (I still have to take a moment and think each time I type it). I wish there was more info out there on him - and maybe there is; we just have to do some more digging. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Goodman Brown

I would like to know by what grounds the section under "Analysis" of the "Young Goodman Brown" article that was added at 03:23 was removed.

In addition, and in regards to the same section of the same article, I wonder why it is possible for a statement about the setting of the story taking place during the Salem Witchcraft trials to remain on the page when it is far less supported than anything else that had been on the page. I would rather argue that Goodman Brown is a character parallel to Hawthorne himself meaning that the setting of the story takes place in 1835, not the 17th century. Besides that, the addition that I refer to goes into further detail to support the claim made that "'Young Goodman Brown' is often generalized as an allegory about the discovery of evil, the true nature of humanity" and provides more historical data and incorporates it with the social-philosophical events of the time, that time being the Age of Enlightenment and following the ideals advocated by Thomas Hobbes.

ENL003-Kara (talk) 04:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question regarding the deletion of the section under "analysis" of the "Young Goodman Brown" article that was added on November 11.

The analysis that was posted does not contain any "original research." It was completely derived using Hawthorne's actual text. However, it seems you would rather have me copy someone elses interpretation of the text and post it in the anlysis section? I cannot comprehend how someone else's "interpretation" could be more credible than Hawthorne's original work? The analysis I posted did not contain any personal ideas. Everything I posted was supported with concrete details from Hawhtorne's original work....Furthermore, I would like a clarification on the term "original research." If I were to repost my analysis section simply using someone elses published interpretation, it would still be original research. Whoever published that interpretation put their own personal ideas into it.

(English3kajs (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I have replied at your talk page (User talk:English3kajs). --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poe Toaster

You magnanimous bastard! Kudos!--Wikipedian1286 (talk) 01:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Grotesque and Arabesque

Hi there, it's me again, the one from :es: =P. Got a question to ask you. In the article about the book, the first paragraph in the "publication" section ends telling Poe dedicated the publication to William Drayton, and in the second ends telling the same all over, except this time it goes on the relationship between the two of them and says he dedicated the collection to him, and it's been talking about the preface. So, to the point, did Poe dedicated both times, in the preface and in the publication? did he dedicated both the publication itself and the collection, or both? was the same Drayton in both cases (first a judge then a colonel)? Shouldn't the text be merged if they are indeed the same person and the same dedication? Sorry if I'm abusing you a little too much, but you are indeed a strong reference in this subject. Cheers, Gizmo II (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's saying the same thing; I'm not sure why it was repeated. I'll go into it and bring the info together. But, really, the collection and the book are the same thing and the dedication to Drayton was, I believe, in the preface. My guess is the man was both a judge and a colonel at different points... I'll look into it and update the page! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a midnight dreary...

Apropos of nothing, I assume that you have heard the recording of Christopher Walken reading "The Raven," yes? If not, you really ought to. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, I certainly have heard that one! I've heard better - but I've also heard (many) worse! --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aahhh, good! Yes, Walken does an admirable job, has the right voice, and does not overdo it, which is the trap many fall into. With Poe, it is best to simply let the words do their work. Iggy Pop's rendition of "The Tell Tale Heart," on the same album, is, sadly, not very good. Indeed, it is hysterical. At any rate... Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 05:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love Iggy Pop, but that was not one of his best. Have you heard Lou Reed's album The Raven? Though I admire his passion for Poe, the album is excruciating! --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did hear some of it, enough to know I did not want to hear anymore... Yes, the admiration is admirable, but the execution abominable. Alas... I saw Lawrence Ferlinghetti speak many years ago, and he advised never letting actors read your work. The same could be said of rock musicians. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Disobedience (Thoreau)

Would you care to weigh in over on the talk page of this article, in the ongoing discussion about the "paraphrased synopsis"? I would like very much to hear your thoughts on the matter, and more editors need to get involved. Two editors at loggerheads is not helpful. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time....

I've been busy over at the Ligeia article. If you get the chance would you mind inspecting my work? I think I've made some improvements and I tried very hard to avoid original research--though admittedly I changed some minor un-sourced material merely for different un-sourced material. If you don't have time, that's cool too--somebody else will eventually. Thanks!MorbidAnatomy (talk) 04:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that you're already on it! thanks!MorbidAnatomy (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm already keeping an eye on you - and the page. You can't touch a Poe-related article on here without me being alerted. :) Do you know how the "watch list" works? But, definitely keep me updated if you need specific help! --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know how the watch list works. I am a sworn opponent of wikipedia (because it prioritizes "sourced material" over truth--a statement can be completely wrong but it qualifies as wiki gospel if it has a source--that drives me nuts!)--however, I try real hard to stay in the guidelines--I just want to improve articles--not ruffle feathers. So I guess it's good that you're "keeping an eye on" me.MorbidAnatomy (talk) 04:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sort of learn to play the game after a while but, yes, it's true: Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability. Playing by their rules, however, you eventually can put together some great articles that still conform to policy. One of my favorites is on James Russell Lowell. Anyway, regarding the watchlist, if you look at the top of any article, there is a tab that says "Watch" a few tabs away from the "edit this page" option - click on that. If you look way up on the top right corner of your screen, you'll see a few blue text links, including your discussion page, etc. One is "my watchlist" - I usually click on that first thing when I log in. The only frustrating thing about it is you see how much vandalism occurs. I mean, overwhelming amounts of penis jokes, gay jokes, fat jokes, and quick rants against seventh-grade teachers. It gets annoying. Welcome to Wikipedia. --Midnightdreary (talk) 04:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Whitman's Multitudes: ISBN

Hi Midnightdreary:

Thanks for adding the journalism material in the WW article. Here are the ISBNs you asked for:

Paperback: 978-1433103834 Hardcover: 978-1433101533

The citation information is:

Jason Stacy, Walt Whitman's Multitudes: Labor Reform and Persona in Whitman's Journalism and the First Leaves of Grasss, 1840-1855, New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2008.

Thanks very much!

js —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonstacy (talk • contribs) 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermore

Hi, Midnight, I answered you at my page, but I will also copy here for your convenience. - Nunh-huh 19:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why is simply the determination of one Wikipedia editor who has been slowly, patiently pushing things that way for about a year now, mostly because he thinks blue links are visual clutter. It's been largely under the radar, as most people blithely ignore the MOS until they start enforcing decisions that have the consensus only of those who edit the MOS and not of the general editorship. Personally, I'd never trust a MOS that uses the word "deprecates": it suggests it's written by computer geeks who know nothing of style. Anyway, and more the point (for I fear I've answered a rhetorical question non-rhetorically): among the many things Wikipedia is used for is the compilation of "On This Day" notices: removal of birth and death date links would essentially render it worthless for this purpose, and is not to be lightly done. It is for this reason among others that it's become clear that there is no consensus for removing these, and leaving them in is clearly in the remit of the MOS, as such linking is not "for format only". There is consensus for removal of links of naked years (like [[1969]]), but that's about it. This may evolve, but I believe it to be a fair statement of the status quo. - Nunh-huh 19:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no complaints about not having a debate, in fact, at Wikipedia, it's a welcome relief :). I admit it did irk me a little that when someone bothers to find out exact dates someone else comes along to dictate how they're presented. Perhaps it is unreasonable to be irked, but we're all human here, and volunteers, and we ought to give each other a little leeway. If you are interested in more source material on Edwin Percy Whipple, I'd be happy to scan the two pages in the source cited and e-mail it to you to use for expansion of the article. - Nunh-huh 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Very

Hi. I am reviewing your article Jones Very for GA. It looks like an excellent article. I have added some initial comments at Talk:Jones Very/GA1 and will add more if I find anything else. Overall, everything checks out. I can't see any major problems. Please feel free to contact me with questions or comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

The veils of Midnight are shadowing over Wikipedia.... (Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

re C. Auguste Dupin

Thanks for the correspondence; I note you've made many edits on Poe & his works. I'm glad you found my comment interesting, but I'm afraid it is merely my own connection; this is how it started. (Previously, my edits have been on medical matters. I've no formal tertiary training in literature: I'm an Australian paediatrician with a second MA degree in biological anthropology.)

I'm a great fan of the 'golden age' British murder mystery (I also love Rex Stout), and I ended up expanding the Wikipedia article on Roderick Alleyn, the detective hero of Ngaio Marsh. Marsh herself compared Alleyn, & her own attitude to him, to Lord Peter Wimsey, both being gentlemen detectives. Because a lot of similar Wikipedia comparisons had been made with & between other detective characters, but not collected together, I ended up creating an article on the gentleman detective—my first ever new article!—and I decided to place some cross references. Yours is the first feedback I've received—again thank you. I had always thought the hero of The Moonstone was the first gentleman detective. However, in my reading around it, it seemed as though Dupin had certain similarities with the later heroes (despite his being French!), or to put it another way, it's another tribute to Poe's enduring influence. I had read most of Poe's stories, in my younger days when I was more into 'horror', but I re-read Murder in ther Rue Morgue, and the comparison seemed appropriate. --DavidB 23:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've been reading your other discussions in your talk page, and I take your point about verification. Consequently, I have toned down my earlier edit on Dupin, to " Dupin shares some features with the later gentleman detective, a character type that became common in the Golden Age of Detective Fiction.": I think this at least is verifiable from all the references in the relevant Wikipedia articles. I will alter the gentleman detective article as well. --DavidB 23:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Maxinmin adding odd links.

Re User talk:Maxinmin... Collect brought this to my attention. Please advise if you need any help, I think your warning was spot on... ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I'm the guy that asked about Poe doing any self publishing, and you directed me to a very interesting wiki entry that Poe wrote Tamerlane and Other Poems thanks for taking the time to help me with my question. --Driveby

Yeats on Poe

I see your point about using those book reviews as sources, but as for Ackroyd's book, I have not read it yet. Is it really that bad? Well, I'll try to look into this further too, although I don't have that many real sources at the moment. Even if it's a bad book I doubt Ackroyd would just make it up that Yeats praised Poe, but you're right that it should be looked into. It's notable that this admittedly weak source I first posted [12] came from the intro to a collection of Poe stories rather than Ackroyd's book, so at least we have established that different sources are saying Yeats admired Poe. We just need to find some better sources. 02:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Mary had a little lamb?

Midnightdreary -- Thank you for your comments at Sarah Josepha Hale. In that context, my question wasn't merely rhetorical -- I really didn't understand the reasons why the addition of the poem was unhelpful; and now I'm better informed about why it can be construed as a distraction. I simply didn't see it; and my uncertainty in terms of Mary had a little lamb was informed by poetry excerpts I'd incorporated in a number of articles, e.g.,

• Emperor Temmu#Events of Temmu's life (c. 631-686); Man'yōshū#Poetry excerpt
• Empress Jitō#Events of Jito's life (645–702); Hyakunin Isshu#Poetry excerpt
• Yukio Ozaki#Career of public service (1858–1954)
• Nisei#Education
• Sansei#Internment and redress; Lawson Fusao Inada (1938- )

Context matters, of course. Does the persuasive reasoning applied in the Hale article extend to subjects with an arguably different cultural context? I'd be interested in your assessment of poetry appearing in articles which might otherwise escape your close scrutiny. In my view, these illustrative excerpts do enhance the subject; but perhaps your point-of-view will be different? --Tenmei (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poe as an artist?

Hello again Midnight, I saw the following on the History page of the Poe article: "14:27, 4 December 2008 Midnightdreary (Talk | contribs) (51,018 bytes) (Remove category; Poe was not an artist)" Strictly out of curiosity, why do you not consider Poe an artist? What are fiction and poetry writing if not art? I certainly think he qualifies as an artist. Also, I would think you would want the article connected to as many justifiable categories as possible simply for the sake of increasing public awareness of Poe in general. Anyway, I don't really care one way or the other, I just thought your comment that "Poe was not an artist" was a rather surprising and would like to hear your reasoning. Thanks. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The category is meant for the more traditional definition of artists (i.e. painters, sculptors, visual arts, fine arts, etc.). I didn't mean to make an aesthetic statement. If you want to argue that all writers are artists, the writers category itself would be a subcategory under an artist category. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, as an aside, in a personal opinion unrelated to this particular category, overcategorization is a pain in the ass. I like to keep to the basics so we can see what's important without lugging through the unimportant. "Writers from Philadelphia", "Writers from New York City", "Writers from Virginia", "Right-handed writers", "Writers who used a pencil", "Writers who wrote letters" - how helpful are categories when you've already got a kick-ass article? :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All very good points. Thanks for indulging my curiosity and explaining your point of view on this.MorbidAnatomy (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Of course, the "horror artists" category is not based on point of view, but the definition of the category itself. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request

I know it might take time out of your schedule, but could I request something that would help with your poetry assessments? Could you add a simple, few word sentence about why an item is of an importance, and then a few bits about how the article could be improved to move it up the quality scale? It just makes it easier on editors when that happens (but few people do it anymore). Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can advise every article on how to improve (many poetry articles are just stubs; in those cases, I'd say, "Write more than two sentences!"). What I'm doing instead is proposing a discussion on how we rate all poetry articles as far as importance. It's at the discussion page of the Poetry Project if you'd like to join in. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brook Farm

I am reviewing your article, Brook Farm for GA and have entered some initial comments at Talk:Brook Farm/GA1. It is a very interesting article. I do think the organization could be improved so that the sequence of events would be easier to follow. I will probably be adding more comments and may do some simple error fixing of the article myself, if that is ok with you. Please feel free to contact me with questions and comments. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the introduction to the whole Brook Farm concept."A History of American Literature ... - Google Book Search". I see that there is plenty on it, much along the lines you support. Forgive me for being more realistic (cynical) about human nature than you! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TFAR

Edgar Allan Poe has been nominated to appear on the main page. :) Awadewit (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me. I made that request shortly after its promotion, back when there was a section for long-range requests, so it's good to see someone remembered. Unfortunately... Fortunately, I'll be immersed in Poe bicentennial celebrations that day and won't be near a computer to see it happen! --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice? Take a screenshot at 8 p.m., when it comes up. (Or is it 7....stupid time zones.) Allanon ^♠The Dark Druid♠ 05:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it best to stay away - it is hard to watch all of the vandalism! Awadewit (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's what will happen for me, since I can't really avoid it. But I think I'm better off, and I'll just assume in good faith that people are sincerely there to improve it, or to do battle with the vandalism rush. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mansion of Happiness

Thank you for the initial review of The Mansion of Happiness. I have incorporated your excellent suggestions and recommendations. I believe, the article shows significant improvement and clarification. Thank you! ItsLassieTime (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was thrilled to see Mansion passed its review and is now a GA! Thank you so much for your very critical scrutiny of the article. I have learned much! I'll keep your excellent closing recommendations in mind! Thank you again! ItsLassieTime (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays, Season Greetings, Merry Christmas, Festival Kwanza, Sporting Boxing Day, Happy Chanukah, Happy New Years, and all of that great stuff that you can think of. Thank you for all of the work you put in at the poetry project and all of your assessment help. It has accomplished a lot of good. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Russell Lowell

Hi! Yes, I know about leads, but as I read the article, it seemed that the lead info was a bit different from the info below, enough so that I had to reread the article. I didn't realize this was a featured article. I'll just keep my hands off! Cheers... --June w (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the reference to Once to Every Man and Nation it seems as though there are two issues to think through here.

On the citation format: The citation is to a book. You're right that the format wasn't ideal, good catch. I've put in a more specific citation, to a more general work, and also added a second citation drawn from another Wikipedia page that touches on the same point, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebenezer_(hymn)

On the relevance/importance of the citation: My sense is that it is quite unusual for a poem to make its way into the principal hymnal of a Protestant denomination (the references I saw were to the Episcopal Church's hymnal, not sure of other denominations). The point is an interesting one in the context of this article in particular. The general tone of the article is that Lowell is a forgotten poet. That seems to be entirely correct, but that makes the residue he has left in various cultural locations even more interesting. The hymn itself still has a significant cultural presence. I recommend a search on Once to Every Man and Nation Hymn in Google Book Search to get a sense of its continuing relevance. You'll see over 1000 hits, many of which mention Lowell's authorship. Hits vary from the Sikh Review to sources focusing on antislavery and civil rights movements to more distinctively historical or religious texts. It is somewhat surprising that Wikipedia does not have an article on the hymn itself (although the text appears in Wikisource); maybe I will undertake that at some point. Falstaf (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Political Appointments System in Hong Kong

Please refer to my posting at Talk:Political Appointments System in Hong Kong/GA1, thanks. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments

Thanks for your kind comments. I've replied on my talk page. Bells, bells, bells (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Horror needs your help

Midnightdreary/Archive 3 : You've received this message as you are listed as a WikiProject Horror Participant. As you may have noticed, WikiProject Horror has suffered from a lack of direction and coordination of late. A suggestion on how to improve the Project and maintain it as a viable resource has been placed up for discussion here. As a member of the Project, your voice is valued and your input is requested. Thank you, hornoir (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday!

Hope you had/are having a good time Poe-trekking. Saw this, thought of you: [13] ... and The Raven of course. ++Lar: t/c 05:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought itself cannot pass through this interval more speedily

I'm astonished how quickly you responded to my spelling question. I was sadly assuming no one would see that Q for months and months (if ever), and yet within hours you had responded and fixed the problem. Nice work! Thmazing (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! It was all just good timing - and you can't touch a Poe article around here without me noticing! ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Help

It is quite possible that I am going blind, but I can not find the part of the analysis that mentions Nightingale. I have not read the story in quite some time, but I would probably question the connection between the two only because I don't see much relation in their styles. Not to say that Poe didn't have a great knowledge of Keats, as I am sure he did, but I just don't see him as a guy who gives shoutouts to his fallen homies across the pond:) If it is there and I missed it, then let me know and I will look again. Mrathel (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where the connection is being made, and it works well for the sake of comparison. Yet, I am not entirely sure that it can stand alone without a reference to the critic who argues it; something like:

After her death, Poe's portrayal of fictional heroines changed, leading Jeffry Meyers to suggest that Poe began to follow the tradition of John Keats's "Ode to a Nightingale", as he idealized sick women while wishing for their death.

. I am probably being a bit of a pain here, but sometimes I have a hard time allowing such a claim to stand on its own in a WP article. The actual connection, from a textual standpoint, seems a bit weak (unless Meyers gives a clear indication of how he comes to this conclusion), and it can be a bit tough to prove that Poe's portrayal of sick women can be tied to Keats's without a direct semiotic reference. And please forgive me for my playful banter... it gets worse as the night goes on. I am truly honored even to be asked. Mrathel (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Will do! On "The Gold Bug" I thought I'd like to see a year on the illustration in the text and I corrected one or two typos. Check the history. I didn't think it worth mentioning. Good work! BTW, I'm sorry I got involved in that Hamnet Shakespeare thing. I'm thinking of calling an administrator to do the pass/fail. I don't want to be responsible for setting off an avalanche of similar trifles seeking GA status. The backlog will reach the crack of doom and WP editors will damn me to hell! LOL! ShaShaJackson (talk) 01:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to pass that Hamnet article. It's sooooooooooooooooooo slight. But, on top of that, the editor has been nasty and he'll believe he got the GA by being so. If fail it, I'll be inviting more nastiness. I've given him a week for improvements and I see some editing has been accomplished. The article is about the debates surrounding the kid - not the kid - but I can't get the editor to go that way. I think the article can be significantly improved by focusing on the debates from the get-go and expanding on them. Everything to be said about the kid fills all of two short sentences. Oh, well.... ShaShaJackson (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'll keep that well in mind! ShaShaJackson (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gold-Bug

Hi, your first GA review for this article was conducted in an unorthodox manner; GAN has decided to to a second review for all four article this reviewer completed. Since you are now on the bottom of the list, I decided to review the article now so that you will not be penalized for this problem. In case you are worried that I am doing the reviewing (I am the review that gave you a hard time on Brook Farm if you recall) that will not happen this time. This is an excellent article. I will look through it carefully for suggestions, in case you are thinking of FAC and will enter any comments at Talk:The Gold-Bug/GA2. But there is no question that it is a good article. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done, with just a few comments! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tamerlane and Other Poems

It certainly passes GA (and makes me feel guilty about hassling you over Brook Farm). A wonderful article. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel guilty... Some articles are easier to convince its readers than others. Brook Farm was an odd one, after all. Thanks, though! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Fireside poets

In short, yes! I've been stagnate on Wikipedia for the last few months, too lazy to start a new project, but I really like the idea of working on Holmes; he's the only one from the group that I know very little (if anything) about, so it'll be a welcome learning experience. My library has three biographies (Hoyt, Small and Tilton), so I'll start with those. Is there anything else I should look into, research-wise? I'm looking forward to collaborating. :) María (habla conmigo) 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure the bios you pick up are on Senior and not Junior - I made that minor mistake today (though the book I grabbed actually has a lot of info). I have only a cursory knowledge of Holmes but I can tell it will be a challenge mixing his writing with his medical interests! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I noticed that in the catalog. Quite an important family! The medical research/innovations interest me almost as much as his literary career, so this should be fun. I'll do some research and then see where that leads me. María (habla conmigo) 13:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three or four months sounds perfect. I'm on my second-to-last semester of Grad school, so the more time the better. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Ripley (transcendentalist)

Hi Midnightdreary, I am reviewing your article, George Ripley (transcendentalist), for GA and have left some comments at Talk:George Ripley (transcendentalist)/GA1. I apologize in advance for the (perhaps) unduly negative tone of the review. I have enjoyed some of your other writings so much that I was surprised by the stilted and somewhat choppy nature of the writing in this article, especially in the beginning. However, I'm sure it can be easily fixed. I certainly have a high regard for you abilities. Best, —Mattisse (Talk) 02:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help on Eugene O'Neill conflict

As someone who has contributed to the Eugene O'Neill article, perhaps you would be willing to look at the (rather one-sided) discussion on that article's talk page regarding Emerson7's deletion of cited materials, Ah, Wilderness NOT O'Neill's only comedy. I would like to have a Request for Comment process initiated, but must have at least one other editor to have contributed to the discussion before an RfC can be started. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why have you reverted my edit? --emerson7 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Story of the Three Bears

Thank you for reviewing the aricle! I like the suggestions and have begun to work them into the article. Some re-arranging of paragraphs too. ItsLassieTime (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ItsLassieTime (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]