User talk:Macspaunday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For older discussions please see:

Please add new items below.

Anthony Hecht[edit]

Dear Macspaunday, I regret to say to someone I have learned to admire for his contributions, but I have undone your removal of the critical study The Hidden law by Anthony Hecht in the Auden article, because your qualification "undistinguished critical study" is clearly nonsense. Theobald Tiger (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Many other people clearly also admire that book, so I won't try to argue about its merits. Macspaunday (talk) 18:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not a scholar; I am a Dutch layman who is an admirer of Auden and who has translated some of his verse (English > Dutch). I can only say that in my opinion The Hidden Law is by far the best critical study written on Auden's verse. (W. H. Auden: A Commentary, by John Fuller is also very useful, of course.) Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Macspaunday! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 2,732 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. Philip Spender - Find sources: "Philip Spender" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · wikipedia library

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback granted[edit]

Wikipedia Rollback.svg

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I won't abuse it. Macspaunday (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mcdonaldland[edit]

Your first removal was great! Well done!

The second was bad, especially because you removed a short section of mine. Have you read anything about Mcdonald or his debate with Norman Mailer, where he famously chose the west? I no longer have the biography, but it must be referenced there. (Of course, it is certainly referenced by DM) Perhaps biographies of Mailer discuss this debate?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Response on your user page! Macspaunday (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:MedleyDrawnFromTheLife.jpg[edit]

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

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for adding something, but it's going to need a little more than that. That rationale would work for the article on the book, but this is currently used in the article about the author- book covers are typically not warranted there. Basically, we need to ask the question of what seeing this cover adds to reader understanding of the topic- this in reference to non-free content criterion 8. Non-free content may not be used unless it meets all 8 criteria. Template:Non-free use rationale may be useful to help you structure the rationale. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't care enough about the image to justify its presence. I've removed the link on Robert Medley. Please feel free to delete the file. Macspaunday (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Macspaunday, I can see you're a little annoyed by all of this. Please understand that I have been in the same position that you are now, with content that I have uploaded being challenged. The non-free content guidelines (and, specifically, the non-free content criteria) have been deliberately written to minimise the amount of non-free content used on Wikipedia, and are deliberately stricter than American law. This means that, firstly, they suggest that a lot of images which editors want to use may not be usable, and, secondly, they are rather complicated. I'm sorry you have had such a negative experience with the policy, but it exists for a number of reasons, and the policy is a core part of the project, helping significantly towards Wikipedia's goals. If you have any questions concerning the policy, be they general or related to particular files, I am available to help- just drop me a line on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

W. H. Auden[edit]

I saw your recent edit undoing the edits of an IP editor who had changed "Britain" to "England", etc. Since I am a U.S. American, I have no vested interest, but I would like to understand the reason for your edit. To me, England has always been the country, Great Britain includes Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (I think), and a person from England is English, British, or an Englishman, and a person from any one of the parts of Great Britain is British or a Briton (a Brit for short) (besides Welsh and Scots/a Scot). I'm just wondering why you think "Britain" is better than "England". CorinneSD (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's simple: Auden worked and lived in Scotland for some of the period involved, so "England" would merely be factually inaccurate. When I clicked "rollback" I didn't realize that "rollback" didn't give a chance to explain the reason, or I would have added the explanation there. Macspaunday (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh. O.K. Thank you for the explanation. CorinneSD (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Peter Warlock[edit]

I remembered our recent discussion about "British" vs. "English" just above, under "W. H. Auden", when I saw an edit to Peter Warlock (right now it's the second-to-last edit). I don't know which is correct, "British" or "English". I kind of like "English" if it is factually correct. I thought I'd ask you what you thought. CorinneSD (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinion, I'm afraid. On the Auden page, I changed "British" back to "English" purely for the factual reason that the page needed a word that covered both "English" and "Scottish." I don't have any opinion on which is better when there is no factual issue involved. - Macspaunday (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you. You and Rothorpe said the same thing. Now I wonder why anyone would feel strongly one way or the other. (No need to answer. I'm just wondering.) CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

WH Auden[edit]

MacSpaunday,

You have deleted my reference to Waugh's reference in Put Out More Flags to Parsnip and Pimpernel who, it is universally accepted, are based on Auden and Isherwood. Your deletion appears to be based on the fact it is the wrong section. Kindly either reallocate it or give reasons for its delection. I will gladly put it in whatever section you prefer, but it plainly ought to be referenced. Thanks 92.24.102.158 (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's in the section about "work" but it has nothing to do with the work. I've moved it to "Reputation and Influence"? Macspaunday (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)