|
Archive 2 (December 2010-May 2011)
Yeah - that was an oversight on my part, sorry. I was adding a category, and wasn't sufficiently awake to realize I forgot to change the automatic edit summary. I feel like a total idiot about it (not the first time, surely.) --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. 18:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I was wondering why you changed the format of Pierce Brosnan's birth date. I think Wikipedia accepts both formats, but you are probably using the British/European standard, is that right? (I have family from Europe, which is why I am guessing here.) However, I was under the assumption that most biography pages used the "Month before day" format - especially for American actors or actors living in the U.S. I don't really care which format is used to tell you the truth, but I am concerned about consistency, so I am going to ask another editor on the Biography of living persons noticeboard. If there is no "official" standard, then the original format is fine. I'm sure many non-American/Canadian biography pages are the same. I am just letting you know that I am not reverting your edit. I'll let you know what I find out if I don't hear from you. Happy New Year. :-) CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Span. Hope you had a good Christmas and I wish you a great year. Thanks for all the past help. Reginald.Reginald gray (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks, I've put a new bit on the Graves talk. Spicemix (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Span;
I understand that her publishers may refer to the Persian language as "farsi", but that does not change the fact that there is a word for "farsi" in the English language.
As an example, if a French author and their publisher talked (among themselves) about their work being in "français", and if you were then to write an English article about the author's works, I'm certain you would say (in English) that their work is compiled in "French" rather than "français" (simply because the language of your article is English, and in English we use English words), right?
"français" and French in this example may be replaced with "al-arabiya" and Arabic, "dansk" and Danish, "islenska" and Icelandic, "slovenčina" and Slovak, or any other from a rather long list, but I'm sure you catch my drift.
I also realize that there are instances where the word has been (incorrectly) used in articles, but reference to a particular link, article, etc. would make a similar change impractical. This instance, however, I do not believe to be one of those.
Your comments? Kamran the Great (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I take your point. I would say that 'farsi' has entered the English language and has common currency as a word (in the UK) in itself. Take a look at any English dictionary you might choose. Many artists' usage of it in English would point to this, Khalvati is no exception. I can't say I feel strongly enough about the question to take it any further. I would note that many of my fellow commenters on your talk page don't seem to think it's so simple a question. I offer you best wishes on your way. Span (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- right, i saw your comment here after leaving you a comment on my talk page asking why you haven't commented (sorry, i'm rather new to this and the two users' talk pages is a bit confusing to me!). glad to see that my point makes sense :). that being the case, i take it that you agree editing "farsi" to Persian in some pages is a valid point? obviously, there are pages where "farsi" is either part of a reference, or specifically mentioned thus so as to differentiate between different dialects of Persian, etc.; these, understandably, should be left unchanged. However, in the case in question is it safe to assume we are in agreement? Cheers, Kamran the Great (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be frank I get really tired of bickering on Wikipedia about small points that seem to take the wind out of everybody's sails. I'm sure you are doing great work around the place and that, to me, outweighs snickety little comments about two words that mean the same thing. I'm sure you are far more up on the linguistics of the word. I'm sure there's a page somewhere that says that a subject's self definition has the last word - that if Khalvati (etc) say they are writing in farsi that that's what should stand. But knowing Mimi, I know she would light a cigarette, roll her eyes and ask me why I am not writing poetry instead of piddling my good time away on sophistry. So there you go. I would encourage you not to do the same. Good luck and best wishes Span (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ps - yes, it can all seem very confusing and can take a while to get used to finding your way around. I'm very happy to answer navigation questions etc if you need a hand, I'm no expert but happy to pass on what I've learnt over a couple of years. Span (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating! Thanks so much for adding that! Deb (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Spender qualifies eminently as an anti-Communist by virtue of contributing a piece to one of the most famous anti-Communist tracts ever written.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the bibliography at the end. Please don't tell me you've never heard of this book... --MacRusgail (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is partly about you. Unhelpful self-appointed bureaucrats are the scourge of wikipedia. They do not care to do any legwork, but are completely willing to destroy the creative work of others. Now I actually got off my backside, and looked up this book. I suggest you do the same. Here is a quote from the Spender piece (1951 edition of TGTF, p. 253, if you care to put that in a footnote yourself). I have typed this up from the book, so it isn't a lazy "cut and paste" job. "More sinister, though, than the propaganda of heroics, was that of slanderous attack against groups within the [Spanish] Republic who were unfriendly to Communism." Dozens more examples like that in his piece. Suggest you look it up and do something instead of claiming that there are no "references" to his anti-Communism.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your measured and civil response. My point is that there are no citations in the article, either to the content of the book or to Spenders' political allegiances that would support adding an "Anti-communist" category. Listing a certain book in a bibliography is not sourcing. I would hardly call the removal of one category a sign that I am "completely willing to destroy the creative work of others". Span (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the plaque is not clearly shown on that picture about the Old Curt, (although everyone can see, that where is it) but as Marlowe actually lived in that curt while he studies at Cambridge, and was a member of Corpus Christi, I truly can't see what's the problem with it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by McAnt (talk • contribs) 13:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members
Hello -- I'm very new to Wikipedia, feel quite apprehensive about making any sort of comment -- but feel I have to defend my grandfather against the 'Far Right' addition to his entry. I knew him, although I was quite young, a teenager, when he died in 1956 -- and I have all his diaries and papers. I fully accept that he was right-wing, but the term 'Far Right' is, I feel, far too extreme to describe his political views. When one clicks on 'Far right' the most revolting sites come -- full of nasty racist views that would horrify my grandfather. I feel that keeping this 'Far Right' link casts an unfair slur on him, and does not represent his ideas at all.
(Deborah Owen (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Dear Deborah, Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your comment. I can understand that seeing negative content about someone you know is distressing. I think the article at present makes no comment on his political status. The encyclopaedia works by citing verifiable sources to support its content. At the moment the page has none. You will note that I didn't not add that Mr Owen had far right politics, but restored the unexplained deletion of the material. I'm sure the article would greatly benefit from the addition of more solidly sourced biographical material so that your grandfather is more accurately and fully represented. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Spanglej,
I am one of the sources of information about the author Fynn, aka Sydney George Hopkins, and am collaborating with two others to try and raise his profile within the worldwide readership of the Anna books.
Could you please explain why you think you are qualified to remove information that has been gathered over years of research, and also links to websites which are most useful to readers of the books?
Over the past 3 years there have been more than 6,000 referrals via Wikipedia to sites concerning Syd Hopkins, with very positive feedback, and I consider your editing to be somewhat arrogant and misguided.
Please contact me via email: fynn@finchden.co.uk
Thank you
John Stevenson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.126.247 (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear John, Thank you for your comments. The edits are not intended as a personal slight to you or Sydney George Hopkins. I am a great fan of the books. The intention is to clear up the page in accordance with the aims of Wikipedia. It is an encyclopaedia, not a means of promotion for any particular subject (see WP:SOAPBOX). We aim to present factual evidence in a neutral way. It may be worth looking having a look at the basic principles of what the project is and is not. Any editor is 'qualified' to make edits in line with Wikipedia guidelines, that is what makes us a collaborative project. I understand that much of the edited content was offered through message boards of friends and fans of Mr Hopkins, through stories and anecdotes and that his work has great personal meaning. I see that you write "The content of this page has been approved by Syd's widow Jill Hopkins, who has also contributed towards it". However we work on the basis of citing verifiable sources with inline citations. At the moment it offer none. These sources do not unfortunately include message boards, forums, blogs or fansites. Given the popularity of the books, I'm sure there is verifiable, third party sources that can be cited such as newspaper reviews, biographical books or other encyclopaedias. It may be good to create an article on Sydney George Hopkins himself, if enough solid biographical material can be found. I hope this clarfies my edits and that we can work to improve and strengthen the article over time. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Span,
I am very puzzled and distressed by the changes you have made to my wikipedia page.
All the information on there was accurate, up to date and factually verifiable.
You have removed all the information about my most recent publication, and my reviews.
Why???
Please would you return the page to the way it was.
thank you
Maggie Butt---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.234.134 (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Maggie. It maybe worth have a look at the founding principles of Wikipedia. The articles are not designed for personal promotion and we aim for neutral point of view to be put forward. It is not 'your page', as you say, but an article in a collaborative encyclopaedia. Editors with a conflict of interest in the objectivity of the page or autobiographical writing on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged.
- In addition nearly all the page context is lifted whole from your webpage. This violates copyright guidelines. For these reasons I won't be replacing the text from your website. I hope that clarifies my edits. I'd recommend logging in and declaring your interest on your user page, then stepping back from the page for other editors to work on it. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Span,
I thought i'd introduce myself as along with John Stevenson and another individual, John Gray, i have been working to raise the profile of Syd Hopkins, author of three books about an East End of London child called Anna. I'm Nigel and i'd like to thank you for correcting me regarding the protocol of using Wikipedia. I'd like to work with you on any changes to the MGTIA page so that i stick to the Wikipedia Guidelines, whilst helping to improve the books page as more becomes known about the events surrounding the books, and Sydney Hopkins himself. As you suggest to John S this may require a separate page on Mr. Hopkins in the future.
The three of us are in contact with Mr. Hopkins estate, primarily his widow Jill. Indeed John Stevenson knew Syd many years ago. However our relations and negotiations with Jill are extremely delicate as she is an intensely private person. We are trying to abide by her wishes regarding the content of the page, which she occasionally visits. Hence the quote from her which i'd previously posted.
I look forward to working with you in the future.
Regards, N. C. Fortune (talk) 12:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Nigel C. Fortune.[reply]
- Hi Nigel, thank you for your message. I can see that the wishes for Jill are important to you. In adding information and references to the article, it would seem like the introductions to the Anna books might be a good place to start. All best wishes Span (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anna,
Thanks for the information regarding creating a Wikipedia page for Syd Hopkins. I am currently in discussions with John Stevenson and another researcher regarding the possibility of doing one. Given the fact that i have never created a page before i'm somewhat doubtful about taking this task on.
Many thanks & best wishes,
Nigel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigel C. Fortune (talk • contribs) 16:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spanglej! I'm not sure which welcome template you're using, but it doesn't close properly at the bottom and encloses all subsequent posts in the colored border. I fixed one example here. Oh, and it's always nice to meet another one of the few out there who like to welcome the new folk! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 06:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, sorry about that. Oversight on my part. Span (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal but I noticed you write section edit summaries before the section name. I have not seen this before. See Help:Edit summary#Section editing. Your edit summaries risk being overlooked by some people who don't expect them there. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for flagging it up. Best wishes Span (talk) 05:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the bit about William Carlos Williams referenced in You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger is something to be mentioned "in passing." It's an important detail to the movie. Clearly, Woody Allen was paying homage to Williams. Deserves to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.119.4 (talk) 03:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your view pro tem, but please add your inline citations without delay (showing the dates if possible) or it will be quite approprtiate to again remove the content and bring the information into line with the article on Bloomsbury. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Re: Joseph Brodsky as a Soviet poet.
I think it is inaccurate to call Brodsky a Soviet poet. Of course he was born in USSR, but he was no more "Soviet" than anybody else born there (actually, considerably less so). And we don't brand anybody born in Russia between 1917-1990 as "Soviet", do we? The key point point is that "Soviet" refers to the political dimension of then-Russia, not to nationality. Brodsky was in fact very much an anti-Soviet, and I think he'd never, ever, describe himself using this word. In fact, there is a good, sourced quote: "I am Jewish---a Russian poet and an English essayist." No mention of "Soviet".
I'll revert to my previous version in 24hrs, unless you wish to discuss this further. Best regards,
vHF 152.88.168.155 (talk) 10:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Thanks for your message. I would indeed say that anybody born in Russia between 1917-1990 is classed as Soviet, given that this is the geo-political name for the region during the time. I don't think that allegiance comes into it. If I don't agree with the European Union, but I am French, this doesn't affect things one way or another. But enough of the given sources and links in the article describe him as Russian, so I'll acquiesce. Best wishes Span (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the understanding and your non-militant attitude. I have restored the "Russian-American" label. I would still argue that "Soviet" refers to politics; after all, it comes from the Russian word for "council", as it were the Workers Councils that supposedly ruled in the USSR. Your EU analogy only strengthens my point: you'd still call yourself a French poet, rather than an EU-poet (regardless of the clumsiness of the expression) or even a European poet, unless your work was mainly based on or concerned with the idea or principles of European Union. Another example may be Maxim Gorky: I have absolutely no problem with describing him as a Soviet novelist, as he indeed is in the Wikipedia. BTW I was actually born in the Soviet Block (though not in USSR). "Soviet" is very much a pejorative adjective where I'm from, and it does suggest allegiance or at least assent. This is why I recoiled at the branding of Brodsky as Soviet. The pejorative character of this word may be less pronounced in English, but I still think there is more than a shade of it there. Best, vHF 152.88.168.155 (talk) 10:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting comments. I haven't heard of the Soviet appellation being taken as a matter of preference, opinion or self-definition before. I can understand it is a sensitive subject if it is taken as pejorative/optional rather than a geographical description. I shall look more into the subject. Do you not fancy logging in? It would be interesting to get your take on the articles of various Russian poets. Best wishes Span (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know very little about poetry. I don't even speak Russian---I know only Brodsky's essays in English. Still, thanks for the invitation. Best, vHF 152.88.168.155 (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :) Nice to meet you, too (may I ask, er, how?) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're welcome. I'm happy to do something for this great playwright. - Artoasis (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you got a mention in this report, please don't replace any content without discussion and consensus at the BLP noticeboard here, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, just saw this. It came at the time of another message. Best wishes Span (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, send me your email address and I will post you a picture. Thanks. Erika Glenday (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, you may not wish to display your email in which case I don't know how to get a picture to you or indeed, upload it myself. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erika Glenday (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, an email link did appear but without the attachment function. I can't really work this, it's too fiddly. I am giving up for the moment. Thanks. (Erika Glenday (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Thanks very much for trying. Could you post the Commons image link here if you have a mo and I will upload it? I love John's work. I think he's one of the finest poets working in Britain today. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read that policy page, and note the results of failure to heeed it. I suggest that you self-revert your last edit on the Terry Richardson article lest you run afoul of an eager admin. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Collect. I have not 3RR'd as I added a lot of new content including strong references this evening. 3R only refers to the same material being reverted, as I understand it. The material does not contravene WP:BLP as it's fully public text, quoting Richardson in interview. He has made nudity the focus of his photo shoots for many years. It cannot be said to be contentious or sensitive material as far as Richardson goes. I am not making a point or being argumentative. I do believe this material can stand. I'm not into edit wars. As a long standing editor on this page I'm happy to discuss changes. Best wishes Span (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for the barnstar! I don't have many of those, so it's nice to gain another one. Christine (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spanglej,
I noticed that you added that beautiful image of Dr. Angelou to her bio page. I have a few questions about it. First, where did you get it? The source page says it's from Flickr. I mean, is it even acceptable as a free image? Also, do you know when it was taken? We really should have a date for it. I wonder if we should replace the infobox image with it, because to be honest, I really don't like the image in the infobox; I don't think it does her justice at all. I have been horribly lax in working on any of her articles lately, and I need to get back to it soon. I have been able to download two images of her from the White House website, when she received the Pres. Medal of Freedom. I'm notoriously bad at assessing if images are free use, so I'll upload them to WP and see if they'll fly. Would you mind looking at them? I ask because I'm not at all sure if your image is acceptable or not. I have some time this afternoon; I'll work on it now. Anyway, thanks and talk at you soon. Christine (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am wondering why you deleted my entry? Why would you not want a comprehensive list of an author's works on their page? Curating a selected list of books appears to me to run the risk of the Wikipedia editor selecting which books by an author are or are not worth reading and as far as I understand the goal on most author pages is to present a full list of publications by a given author. Furthermore, if for some reason I do not understand it is acceptable to present a selected list to the world I do not understand why one of the strongest and best reviewed editions of Akhmatova's selected poems would be deleted? I thank you in advance for your help in elucidating this matter.
Du4ed (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. Apologies. Span (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks again. I'm going to add/update information for many more books and I want to be clear about any particulars involved with doing so- I see we have contributed to many of the same pages!
Du4ed (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
