User talk:INeverCry/Archive 1

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


DYK for Lev Lunts[edit]

Orlady (talk) 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC) 16:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrol.svg

Hi INeverCry, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! FASTILY (TALK) 21:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Many thanks for your appreciation for my work! I am particularly glad for the motivation, as gender history is in fact my special interest, a subject I like to no more about, and I like to think that I can contribute to the subject myself. My thought is, in short, to write what I would like to read about myself, and when I search for something, I like to share it by introducing it to Wikipedia when I find the answer. I am glad if I can. Thank you again. --Aciram (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Evgeny Shvarts[edit]

Thanks. I turned my article into a redirect page. Pkeets (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the kind words. Pkeets (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The American Senator[edit]

Nice picture! The first-edition title-page shots are good, but the color and shape in this one adds a nice compositional element to the page—it breaks up the marching column of gray.

Re. GA, I don't think it merits one. Have you looked at the talk page, and read my brief but enlightening discussion with User:Sadads, who rated it? I think one of his points is dead-on: that it sounds like I'm inserting a lot of my own ideas rather than drawing them from good lit-crit sources. Unfortunately, rewriting it would be a major project; in fact, it'd be impossible for me right now, since I don't have access to a lot of the sources (I wrote it while staying with a friend who lives within easy walking distance of a good university library).

After a false start and a long delay, I'm back to reading The Bertrams; with luck, I'll have at least a plot summary and the outline of an article going by year's end. It'll be an interesting article to write, because most Trollope scholars seem to regard it as a fairly bad book. However, it's useful as an indicator of Trollope's early views on matters religious—George Bertram is mildly condemned for rejecting the literal truth of Genesis in it, while a few years later Trollope was supporting Bishop Colenso for doing that very thing. Ammodramus (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read any of the three novels on your to-do list. Most of the sources I've read say that La Vendee is pretty bad. I'd like to read, and then write an article on, John Caldigate, since I read that an important event in the book involves a technical point concerning mail—and that Trollope, high in the Post Office as he was, got it wrong. I won't say more, lest I spoil the book for you (although Trollope himself didn't like keeping secrets from the reader; there's an enjoyable passage about that subject in Barchester Towers, Chapter 15). I made it through Small House, and have re-read it several times; I've never rid myself of the desire to slap Lily when she's doing her wounded-fawn thing, but the passages involving Mr. Palliser and Lady Dumbello keep bringing me back to the book.
Almost finished reading The Bertrams. I finished it the last time I ventured upon it, but by the time I got done, I was deep in an article on an entirely different subject (Battery White, a Civil War site in South Carolina), and by the time I was done with that I didn't remember The Bertrams well enough to write a reasonably error-free plot summary. Ammodramus (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

/* List of Russian explorers */[edit]

Hello! Could you help fixing some of the issues named at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Russian explorers/archive1, like problems with WP:YOU and removing words like "famous" etc. User:GreatOrangePumpkin helps with technical issues, and I'll expand the lead and check the dead links etc. GreyHood Talk 15:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for fixing some of the issues! Agree on removing the flags. Would you like to help with it? GreyHood Talk 23:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, note the new "collage" (a table in fact) in the lead of the List of Russian explorers. you might like to use a similar thing in some of the lists you edit often, such as the List of Russian writers. GreyHood Talk 23:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've completed the expansion of the lead section, could you check it for style and grammar please? GreyHood Talk 17:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you help with removal of small tags and double br tags from the second column of the list from O to Z? GreyHood Talk 19:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Will do.--INeverCry 19:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I don't think, however, that we should remove wikilinks from image captions as explained here. GreyHood Talk 21:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

New portraits[edit]

Thanks for finding them! I'm surprised that some of them exist at all, like that of Laxman. GreyHood Talk 13:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the postcard[edit]

Do you know the author? I think it must be Elisabeth Bohm. The child-face style is a trademark of her. Here is her series of postcards illustrating the peoples of Russia [1]. And here are more images from her: [2]. They all are free since all are pre-revolutionary and century old. Would be nice to upload more of her images and illustrate the articles on ethnicities etc. GreyHood Talk 19:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar[edit]

Thank you for the Classical barnstar. Have a wonderful New Year!THD3 (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

thank you[edit]

Merry Xmas and Happy New Year to you too! Сол-раз (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year![edit]

Wanna send you something of a postcard. Hope you like classical music just as you like classical literature.

It's Georgy Sviridov's soundtrack for Pushkin's The Blizzard.

The greatest romantic music of all time. Here be the playlist. And here be the sample from the original movie.

All the best wishes for you in the New Year! GreyHood Talk 16:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I love classical music almost as much as classic literature. I'm listening to Anna Netrebko as I write this. --INeverCry 05:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)


Appears you've assessed almost all the new book articles I've created in the past few months, many thanks! Nikthestoned 10:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. INeverCry 17:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Well, that put a smile on my face! Nice to know that anyone even reads those things, let alone appreciates them. Thanks! --Antiquary (talk) 18:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Story of Sigurd[edit]

This is an exciting development! I'll admit I was always rather pleased with that article, and a GA or even a DYK (more realistic, perhaps?) would chuff me no end. I agree that the synopsis short changes Books 3 and 4, and I may have time to set that straight tomorrow night. I've also moved the Influence section (not my work) to the end, where it belongs. --Antiquary (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on putting the refs in order: you're clearly much deeper in wiki lore than I am. I see Chiswick Chap has improved the Influence section as well. I've just expanded the synopses of Books 3 and 4, although you'll see that my Book 4 is still only half the size of my Book 3, since that reflects the relative proportions of those books in the original poem. We progress!
I'm not going to have much time to work on Wikipedia over the next few days, but I've set Sunday aside for the GA campaign, so just pile up any jobs you think need doing at my talk page and I'll deal with them then. Thanks again. --Antiquary (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm keeping at least an intermittent eye on the review page, but I don't spend as much time at Wikipedia as I used to. As to the ratings of literature pages' importance, or indeed any pages' importance, I suppose they always have to be matters of opinion ultimately, but yes I've been startled by some of them. A minute's look at Category:Low-importance Poetry articles will have you gasping. That wonderful elegy "Crossing the Bar" surely deserves a bit better. And indeed poor old Elegy! --Antiquary (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks very much for copy-editing the article. You see me badly wrong-footed, because I was waiting for the review to be completed before addressing the issues raised. Am I supposed to follow close behind Sindinero, righting the page's faults as he identifies each one? I am, you see, a man who reads and writes WP articles without taking much of a look behind the scenes, so I don't know how these things are done. I don't like to see you hoisting my share of the load.
I must say, Sindinero has found my Achilles heel. Precious? Lawksamercy, yes. --Antiquary (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Good man. I've just given the article another read through, and find your changes excellent. One by Sindinero I'm not quite sure about. In the lead, and again in the Influence section, we have Morris' rather than Morris's. The British practice would be for the spelling of genitives to follow the pronunciation, hence Morris's on the one hand and (for example) Jesus' on the other. Is it different Stateside? I will, by the way, be short of time between now and Sunday, but may be able to help. --Antiquary (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for the barnstar, it's nice to know the long hours of research and input are appreciated. Cheers! Fdutil (talk) 04:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Your work is definitely appreciated. I'm personally interested in Russian and Soviet medals, and your articles are very well put together, so it was an easy barnstar to give. INeverCry 05:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:RIA Novosti/Pushkin[edit]

Hello! I thought you may like to help adding the pictures of a new RIA Novosti image release to the related articles: Commons:Commons:RIA_Novosti/Pushkin. Note also the other releases at Commons:Commons:RIA_Novosti. GreyHood Talk 00:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do what I can. INeverCry 03:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hind and panther and kiwi[edit]

Very impressive. I knew about the portrait at Dictionary of New Zealand Biography's website, but feared copyvio or technical fiasco if I tried to transfer it. It rather reminds me of what Housman once wrote in a letter, "This photograph is not quite true to my own notion of my gentleness and sweetness of nature, but neither perhaps is my external appearance." Your new lead tends to wikify the thing as well.
I hope the Sigurd review hasn't run into the sands. --Antiquary (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, my dear sir, what can I do to encourage you in this project to read Sir Walter? The only trouble is that the stories you're planning to read (apart from "The Two Drovers") are very, very minor Scott and may easily give you a false impression of him. If it has to be short then "Wandering Willie's Tale", from Redgauntlet, is a perfectly constructed supernatural story, miraculously written before the principles of the short story had been worked out. The Heart of Midlothian is sometimes considered his greatest novel, but like so many of them it does have quite a lot of Lallans dialogue, which some people just can't get on with. The Antiquary has rather less, as does Waverley, and I thoroughly recommend both as an introduction to Scott. The Lay of the Last Minstrel might be your best way into his poetry. There are also any number of good biogs which show him to be a great, good and thoroughly loveable man. Yes, yes, do get to know Sir Walter. --Antiquary (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the new images. I'm glad you think there's more GA potential out there, but I'm not sure. They all look a little short to me, apart from "The Floure and the Leafe" maybe. If a reviewer said "There needs to be a new section on this, and the section on that needs expanding" I might have to bow out. I have health problems (eyes, arms, back) that make extended use of the computer uncomfortable, hence the long interval since my last new article. But if it's just a matter of copyediting and generally prinking the things up then I'm your man. --Antiquary (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sir Walter[edit]

I do admire the thoroughness of your preparations before making the final assault. Scott himself knew that The Black Dwarf was a failure, and he bailed out at the end of volume 1 by bundling up all his remaining plot into two chapters. It does have the wonderful line "Thae were gude days on the Border when there was neither peace nor justice heard of", which could serve as an epigraph for the Waverley Novels as a whole, but I wouldn't spend much on a copy if I were you. The novels on your short list are an excellent choice, most of the very best of Sir Walter is there. If you find you don't like them then The Surgeon's Daughter and suchlike would stand no chance at all with you. The inspiration was running very thin by that late stage. Scott's letters I've always found a little workaday and prosy, he didn't really give of himself in them. I would exchange the whole lot of them for a few pages of Lamb's or Byron's letters. On the other hand the Journal is one of the very best literary diaries, showing great self-knowledge, and more varied than most such things because Scott led such a busy life in business, politics and law. By pure chance it has better construction than most of his novels, since it begins just before the financial disaster that shaped the course of his last years.
Thanks for the recommendation of John Banim. I must say I'd never heard of him, but I've spent decades looking for someone who might remind me of Scott so I'll certainly try him if he comes my way. "The Irish Sir Walter Scott" is an ironic title given that Sir W considered himself the Scottish Maria Edgeworth. --Antiquary (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, Hogg at his very best is a greater writer even than Sir Walter, having a more authentic grasp of the Scottish folk tradition and a surer sense of the uncanny. Galt never much reminds me of Scott, but The Provost is certainly a fine satire. I once thought James Fennimore Cooper might turn out to be the American Scott, but my thoughts on The Last of the Mohicans would certainly offend any patriotic sense you may have. I haven't repeated that experiment. Zagoskin is a new one on me, and my opinion of him would certainly depend partly on the quality of the translation. Incidentally, speaking quite generally, who are the best Russian translators? You would know. Constance Garnett we can take for granted, but is there anyone else with a really fine style? I have very high standards of prose style and no reading knowledge of any foreign language, so my knowledge of world literature is a bit limited, and that must be set right. --Antiquary (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This is terrible news about Garnett, I always found her very readable and never suspected she was cheating me. Hapgood's Epic Songs of Russia used to be a great favourite of mine, but it was clear even to me that she must be making very free with the originals. Thanks very much for the recommended names. I've read Crime and Punishment in both Magarshack's and McDuff's translations, and hugely enjoyed both, but what I could find of Magarshack's other work read a little creaky to me.

We're forgetting the greatest of all Sir Walter's heirs: Robert Louis Stevenson. I love every word.

Wuthering Heights, eh? I could easily have named that as my favourite as well. I now have to withdraw my patronizing remarks about your ability to read Lallans – if you can tackle Joseph's Yorkshire dialect then nothing in the Waverley novels is going to give you much trouble. I find it a bit knotty myself, even though I'm a northerner and spent 20 years only a few miles from Haworth. I used to know the Bronte moors like the back of my hand. Ah, où sont les neiges d'antan, as they say in Yorkshire. --Antiquary (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Master of Ballantrae's a more grown-up novel than Treasure Island and Kidnapped but there's nothing in the least off-colour in it, quite the contrary. I'm afraid it may go onto your reject pile.

I've just bought the McDuff translation of Karamazov on your recommendation of him. I never managed to get through Magarshack's, but doubtless that was his fault or mine, not Dostoevsky's.

I've just looked again at your first post under the "My 1st poetry article" heading, and realized to my surprise that you didn't actually explicitly invite me to add to the "Trampwoman", which I had somehow got it into my head that you had. I hope you didn't feel I was treading on your toes. I mean, we all know Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but still, there are decencies, there are courtesies. --Antiquary (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The Lives of the Novelists aren't reliable? Interesting. Scott did tend to rely on his memory too much, which was vast but fallible. Luckily verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia. I find the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography invaluable – does your library have a subscription to it? If not I believe it can be quite easy for Americans to enroll in one that does. --Antiquary (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your 1st poetry article[edit]

I like your Trampwoman article very well, but oh dear I'm destined to be a sad disappointment to you as a Hardy fan. I can't get on with his narrative work at all, either in prose or verse (the lyrics and satires are another matter), though on reading the Trampwoman just now I did find the last two stanzas very touching. I have very little on TH on my shelves, and what's more I've been virtually unable to use Google Books for several months (it only ever seems to show me the front cover, even if the book was printed in the 18th or 19th century, although Sample View does still work) so researching any additions may be difficult, but I'm sure I can help somehow, probably today. Looking forward to seeing your "Ruined Maid". Now there's a poem. --Antiquary (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made a few additions, but feel free to revert any you don't like. Two lines of research looked promising but I couldn't quite bring them to an issue: it looks like the poem is based on a true story [3], and there appears to be a ballet based on it [4] < Done>. Perhaps you might have more luck in chasing these down. --Antiquary (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yury Trifonov[edit]


I have edited the page Yuri Trifonov a bit; could you please have a look? (Since I have close to zero experience in pages about writers, I would appreciate critical comments).

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Merci bien! Sasha (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

New navboxes[edit]

Nice work. I've added Godwin to the people section of the Shelley template, since Shelley was his disciple and son-in-law. There are (of course!) no typos anywhere, but I'm not sure about the dates. Am I right in thinking that everything is listed by date of publication rather than composition, even if it was published posthumously? If so then I'll make one or two corrections. --Antiquary (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

James Hogg[edit]

Wow, that's a serious biography now. Well done! It should really be citing more than one source, but since I have a copy of Edith Batho's biog I can sort that out this weekend. I agree that it now needs more of a critical evaluation, but to be frank that's always the part I hate researching, and I think I'll leave it for someone who enjoys that sort of thing. There are plenty of Hogg fans about these days. --Antiquary (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

We're on the move again. Excellent! I'm really short of time today, but I'll certainly have Sindinero's remaining two points settled within the next 48 hours. He has a good point about pointing the reader to the best edition, though in fact there is no critical edition. My memory of the reviews is that Hewlitt's was the only bad one Sigurd got, so perhaps I'll just have to say more about that one, but we'll see.

Hogg moves down the list of priorities but I'll not forget him.

Wordsworth walks on water as far as I'm concerned, and I maintain that opinion by pretending he died about 1810 so that I don't have to confront Wordie the doggerelmonger and four-star shit. [5] Something similar works quite well with Coleridge, but Scott was an absolute darling his whole life long. --Antiquary (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Critical section was OK as it stood, but the reviewer's will be done. I've added one or two fresh carps and snipes, but I really can't do more in that line without misrepresenting the general tone of the critics' reception of the poem. I've also made it clear which edition the scholars use. The Influences section also looks more like a coherent whole, now that Chiswick Chap has done more work on it.
Tragedy of Tragedies looks a good choice for GA. It's incredible how much the quality of our articles varies. --Antiquary (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigurd again etc.[edit]

Great to see you back. I thought you'd realize Wikipedia is wonderful again, once you'd had time to forget how it stinks. Personally I just come here for a good time, and any jobs I stop enjoying I drop like a hot potato. This isn't supposed to be work. Admittedly that didn't stop me sweeping out of Wikiquote a few years ago.

I had a note in my diary for this Sunday, "Poke Sindinero with a sharp stick". Thanks for doing that.

I've readjusted my talk page as you asked. --Antiquary (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Title pages[edit]

Thanks for the 1st edition title-page. Yes, the border does look neat. I have no confidence for these kinds of job and so leave them alone (see above). Your technical expertise never fails to impress. --Antiquary (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Assessment problems[edit]

This is apparently due to the most recent re-design; it seems that the template was forced to go through the B-checklist and to demote articles to C-class when all entries in the list were not set to "yes" or if any were missing. In general, that's a good idea, but given how we have so many articles assessed prior to this having been implemented, I have disabled it for now. We'll need to decide whether we indeed want to go through all B-class articles and fill out the checklist fields (and then to reactivate this feature), or whether not to use checklists at all and leave this functionality permanently disabled.

I've removed B-checklist from Talk:Anastasiya Vertinskaya to illustrate that the template is now functioning as before.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 29, 2012; 13:33 (UTC)

Sigurd, resolved[edit]

I've just passed the article. Sorry again about the unconscionable delays, and nice work on the article! Sindinero (talk) 06:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

WHOOOH! Further reaction follows. --Antiquary (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Distillation by Retort.png The Alchemick Barnstar
For your skill at transmuting dross into gold in your unsung campaign to turn other people's self-indulgences into Wikipedia articles. --Antiquary (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

(Richly deserved)

The Ruined Maid[edit]

AND I get to read your Ruined Maid as well. This is a day! I'm just as startled as you to find it's being said that she was a prostitute. I'd always seen her kept in a flat in St. John's Wood or somewhere. Does this Bartley woman have any extrinsic evidence for her reading, or is it just an opinion? Or are all kept women prostitutes in her book? I'll see about finding alternative interpretations in the next day or two. I think that if I'd been writing the article I might have given a short (it would have to be very short) synopsis rather than the full text, given that we have a Wikisource, but it's a difficult call. --Antiquary (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Reply re Walter Scott[edit]

Thanks for your message re Scott in George Square. I watched the bird, a seagull, leave his head, circle and re-land several times before snapping the statue on zoom. I hadn't realised however that it was on the pic I took of the whole column. Maybe it would no harm if I also posted the close-up; after all, Steell's statue on the Edinburgh monument is already on the page. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

George Crabbe[edit]

Great God! You don't make life easy for yourself, do you? You've just quintupled the page's size and probably done more edits than I have in my whole WP career. This is reaching GA status the hard way. It is, needless to say, an incomparably better article than it was when you found it. I've done a few tiny bits and bobs to help, and I'll do more when I can find some time, but Crabbe isn't one of my enthusiasms (and still less entomology). Clifton is, incidentally, certainly the Bristol one. [6] Now on to "The Ruined Maid". --Antiquary (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The criticism section also looks much better for your additions: you do well to be proud. I've added a couple of disparaging quotes from Wordie and Hazlitt, but you may be able to do better using my link to the Critical Heritage volume at Google Books. Those Critical Heritage books are a godsend to the likes of us, providing bloody Google Books will let you read them at all. I'm finding tricks to outwit it, but it still takes me ages to get to any given page. --Antiquary (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow! I'm blown away by the three pages in your showcase! Why aren't they all Featured Articles, never mind Good Articles?

Of course the word "prostitute" is completely wrong as a description of 'Melia if it's taken as meaning streetwalker – she'd never have got the clothes and the educated English that way. She could be a prostitute in the sense of being a high-class courtesan, but I've got a source that calls her a rich man's mistress and I've substituted that into the article. I have more improvements to make, but they'll have to wait till tomorrow now. Then I'm off on a new page about a Middle English poem. There are still three or four important ME poems not in Wikipedia and I'm determined to bag them while they're still baggable. --Antiquary (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm very impressed by the Shatskaya and Vertinskaya articles too. My main concern with the Shatskaya one is the large number of the subject's own statements about herself, though admittedly she's the only possible authority on her childhood, her favourite singers etc. The Vertinskaya page cites loads of criticisms of her work, but with the exception of Nekhoroshev on Hamlet they're all favourable (unless I skipped one). I'm sure she's had a good press on the whole, but a few more reservations might make it look a bit more balanced. On the whole I preferred the Vertinskaya one, but, as I say, they're both great articles. --Antiquary (talk) 17:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


I see what you mean. This PC business almost amounts to the present editors of WP hijacking it from the future editors, which I think is a complete betrayal of the project's ideals. Any amount of bad editing is preferable to that.

Thanks for fixing the disambig boob. --Antiquary (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Ruined Maid[edit]

My old Mum, who really is a Hardy fan, writes me her opinion about 'Melia's profession:

I think either scenario is possible, but for myself tend to come down on the lowly street prostitute side. The narrator, a poverty-stricken farmworker used to dressing "in tatters, without shoes or socks", would surely think Melia's bright, tawdry, cheap-as-chips "feathers, a fine sweeping gown" the height of fashion. So I rather think you pays your money and you takes your choice.

That's an interesting view, but I'm resting my case on the fact that 'Melia says "You ain't ruined". I think ain't was upper-class slang in 1867, and I don't think she learned that word on the streets. I must confess I'm not as sure as I was though. --Antiquary (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Good points. I also find that in spite of what one academic critic wrote (Academics! Critics!) the word ain't did have a working class existence in the 1860s in parallel with its chic jargon one. I'm now a don't know, and will leave it at that. Sure it's a great poem, it's got us talking hasn't it? --Antiquary (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The Respectable Burgher[edit]

I like your article, and I'm tickled by the poem itself, which I hadn't read before. It rather reminds me of Rupert Brooke's "Fish". Know it? I agree that this one has to be quoted in full. Got a cite for that Hardy quote in the Criticism section?

I'm still at work on my Middle English article, but God these things are slow work, what with my problems with Google Books and a 46 Kb connection speed. --Antiquary (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


Thanks. Yes, the picture is very appropriate indeed, what with it illustrating both the poem's title and its main theme, the love of Lancelot and Guinevere. Ingenious. My article, as sometimes happens with my medieval ones, has too much on the rediscovery of the poem and not enough on the poem itself. That just reflects my being an 18th century antiquary born after my time.

Glad you like Waverley. You might find the tone of it changes about a third of the way through, when Scott took the book up again after a gap of several years. The sub-title, as a little arithmetic shows, should really have been "'Tis Seventy Years Since" by the time he'd completed it. That's an interesting point about Edward having ADD. His main character flaw as an adult is his inability to make his mind up and keep it made up (hence, of course, the surname); I don't know if that's a recognized symptom of it. Incidentally, it's ironic that when Edinburgh wanted to give the most Scottish possible name for its main railway station they chose the fictional name of a Leicestershire family and village. I wonder if they'd ever read the book? --Antiquary (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I was relying on my memory when I said Waverley came from Leics. and now I can't find anything whatever to back it up. Maybe I just thought it felt like the rural heart of England, and my disintegrating brain did the rest.

The new signatures gave me a good laugh, but no, really, I only want a plain ordinary sig like everyone else. Thanks anyway. --Antiquary (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've always missed that battle of Worcester clue, probably because I've always been a bit vague as to where Charles fled to after the battle, though Sir Walter certainly wouldn't have been. Our Escape of Charles II article makes it clear you're right in looking at the west Midlands.

I hope you're fascinated by the socio-economic state of the Highlands before the 1745 rebellion, because you're about to learn an awful lot about it.

Look out for my Athelston, but not in a spirit of high expectation. This will be hardly more than a stub. --Antiquary (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Trollope illustrations and Rachel Ray[edit]

Nice illustrations. I also like your device of putting the border around the title-page images; as you said, it makes the illustration look a lot more like an illustration, and not like more text.

Re-reading Rachel Ray, I don't think it's ready for GA status. As you point out, the major-themes section is pretty slim. Furthermore, there's nothing whatsoever about its reception by present-day critics. That's partly because present-day critics don't seem to have paid a great deal of attention to it; but we'd need a source to say so, plus a summary of major recent criticism.

Unfortunately, I've been hard at work in a different corner of the vineyard, and have had no time for Trollope-related articles at all. I've written a plot summary for The Bertrams, but haven't got beyond that. Ammodramus (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Thanks, but personally I've filed this article under "Better than nothing, I suppose". And so it is.

Thanks for taking the trouble to give it an illustration. It's a striking image, of course, but my taste rather leads me towards using the whole stained glass window rather than a detail of it. That would give you all the insignia of kingship (which is surely the theme of the poem) rather than Athelstan's face, which is an entirely imaginary portrait. The Internet Archive also has these two images that you might consider instead (or as well). Though less pretty they have the advantage of being definitely about Athelston. What do you think?

I'm working on an article on someone's letters now (don't want to say who yet) and it's proving rather difficult. An inchoate sort of a subject, short on hard facts, difficult to grapple with without getting drawn into writing a personal essay rather than an encyclopaedia article. --Antiquary (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you're right about the images. Pity the stained glass man didn't think to proportion his window better for our purposes. The Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft, despite the Gothick title, are written in a very Scottish Enlightenment rationalising tone. They're surprisingly good considering they date from his last years, when he was writing potboilers and ruining his health. He had all the facts at his fingers' ends, of course. If you read any of Scott's middle-period romances you'll know whether you want to read The Abbot or The Pirate, because they're all rather alike. He'd found his formula by that time. --Antiquary (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I think St Ronan's Well is the only one set in Scott's present, but The Antiquary and The Surgeon's Daughter (from what I remember of it – I've only ever read it once) are both set in the days of his youth. Balzac's favourite Waverley Novel was St Ronan's Well, but that's always been thought a very bizarre choice of his. Scott himself acknowledged somewhere that it suffered badly from being set in a kind of locale (a small country spa town) that he had only distant memories of. He found himself hampered in getting the plot moving by the fact that he no longer knew what those kind of idle semi-invalid gentry did with their time. It's readable, but it comes over as second-hand Fanny Burney.

I've just had to give up Hogg's The Three Perils of Man, which I thought read like a very intelligent child's imitation of Scott's chivalric romances. Hogg's a strange one. The Justified Sinner reminds me of very little else in his work. Could it be that the old stories of it not being his, or not entirely his, have something in them after all? It's problems like this that keep me fascinated with literary history. --Antiquary (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm terribly ill-read in Russian lit, but I'll be doing something about that by and by. Next will probably be Dostoevsky or Chekhov, or maybe Trotsky. Not that I'm any kind of a Trot, but from the extracts that come your way he does seem to have been a dazzling writer.

You call that signature squiggly? I once came across an undiscovered letter by Scott, a very late one, and had plans to publish it, but I had to abandon them when after an hour or two's study I still couldn't make out more than a few words. Scholars of Scott's late handwriting are a breed apart. --Antiquary (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

After 11 days I've just noticed for the first time your post asking my opinion of your three Russian-language writers lists. I really don't understand how I missed it. Sorry about that. Yes, they're all very impressive, and the poets and novelists ones in particular are achievements that I hadn't realized the list format was capable of. I love the idea of illustrating the poets with extracts. They both need a fair time to upload if you have my connection speed, but I realize only grass-stalk chewing rustics like me do these days. --Antiquary (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


Hello! Why you put in "Kapusniak" tag WikiRussia? Kapusniak is a Ukrainian dish, it's analogue in Russia - schi. Sincerely --Dfy191 (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realized it was an analogue. Thanks for letting me know about that. I've changed it to wp Poland and wp Ukraine. INeverCry 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
And wp Slovakia. INeverCry 21:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, INeverCry. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 19:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Help with images[edit]

Hello INeverCry,

I have uploaded 3 images of Mohammed al-Maskati [7] [8] [9]. Could you edit one or two of them, then add it to the article and the DYK nomination page? Thanks. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks from me, too! Khazar2 (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


Glad I could help, but I'm terribly busy and so backed up. I am sure your GA reviewer will give you some helpful feedback. Good luck with it! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

George Crabbe GAN[edit]

Hi, INeverCry. I've been a bit out of touch with WP for the last few days, but I'm back at work now on my letters article (Charles Lamb, I'm now prepared to say). I see you've been at work on the Crabbe page, and the Criticism section is now transformed. You even have some extracts from modern critics, which is always the hardest bit to find if you don't have the books on your shelves. My Lamb page will include the phrase "charm, wit and quality", which was the most extended piece of criticism I could find from the last 70 years – and I have got a load of Lamb books. Best of luck indeed, but you're clearly not relying on luck.

What if Trotsky had had Stalin's job? I suspect not much would have been different: same Gulags, same betrayed revolution, but he might have got the Soviet army to the Rhine, if not the English Channel. --Antiquary (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Lamb's letters[edit]

Thanks for the picture, navbox and new category. I've expanded the navbox as you suggested. That's a bit technical for me, but I seem to have got it to work. Back to Middle English now. --Antiquary (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


And not just the early years either. The main thing that strikes me is that I need never be at a loss where to put a link to my latest article while those two are there. --Antiquary (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Look at this...[edit]

My God, I see what you mean. Ealdgyth and half a dozen like-minded souls could make Wikipedia a worthwhile project just by themselves. But she would only make me feel like a gnat (or midge, since I'm a Northerner) if until now I'd thought I was pretty hot stuff – and, believe me, I didn't. Anyway she's been registered here five months longer than I have. Plenty of time to catch up. --Antiquary (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right to take those symptoms seriously and act on them, especially if your ebay work depends on being able to use the computer for hours. You've doubtless tried shifting the mouse to your other hand, but it's also worth learning to master the almost irresistible impulse to lean forward when you read or write, since your back should be right up against the back of your chair. Failing which, as you say, cut back on WP.

I always assumed you did enjoy bringing articles up to GA. If not then I redouble my thanks for your Sigurd work. Always follow your inclinations on WP: you're bound to do better work that way, and there are other people who enjoy the stuff that bores you. But I shouldn't be acting the tempter. Give it all up if that's what your health needs – there's nothing more important. --Antiquary (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I can particularly sympathise with your health problems this week as I've been sharing them. Pains in the arms are the symptom that affect my presence on WP. I've hardly turned the computer on, and may have to take my own advice and cut down on WP permanently. Annoyingly, this latest crisis struck while I was in the middle of a quite big Middle English article. Well, it may get finished yet.

That's a striking picture of Maria Edgeworth, by the way. I don't think I've ever seen it before. --Antiquary (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Hardy[edit]

Now that you have pointed that, I have reconsidered and will try to undo my edits today. Thanks for your opinion werldwayd (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


Ouch. Sorry about the wasted effort on the 50 pages or so; but glad that you found an easy alternative. And I'll repeat: the black borders are definitely a good thing, in making the title-page images look like graphics rather than oddly formatted text. Ammodramus (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Geo. Crabbe[edit]

Went through the Crabbe article and did a bit of copy-editing: mostly, fussing with commas and removing contractions (per WP:CONTRACTION). One thing that I think might improve the article is the name of Crabbe's parents; in several places, I think it'd be better to write "Travis Crabbe" (or whatever his name really was) than "Crabbe's father". Ammodramus (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I still think there are some places where "The elder George Crabbe" might be better than "Crabbe's father", but I'll have to look through it. In any case, the name of his father should be mentioned. Do we know the name of his mother? That should be in there too. Also, I think the article says that George-the-poet was the eldest son: was he the oldest child, or did he have older sisters? Ammodramus (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, INeverCry. You have new messages at Nikthestoned's talk page. --17:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Mark Antokolsky.jpg[edit]

I've made a small hystogram correction to make his face more detailed. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Improvements are always welcome. INeverCry 19:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget[edit]

Don't forget to thank Pesky, I do hope that I haven't taken her credit, as Pesky helped design the award, I created the animation and assembled the pics, but it's Pesky's award that she gives to people herself. Penyulap 03:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

if you had intended form the start to give two barnstars, I'll take one, otherwise, I'll file it under a tongue-in-cheek category 'Barnstars I stole' category. Penyulap 03:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The Literary Barnstar[edit]

I do feel ever tired, but a certain Wizard has raised me to afford the opportunity to thank you sincerely, on behalf of so many of my contemporaries. For myself, for them, and for the living whom we inspire and teach, I say thank you, INeverCry, for giving us a clearer voice. ThomasMoore1852 (talk) 15:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. There's so much more to do for Moore... and the Others... INeverCry 18:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

...and at this[edit]

Delicious, thanks! The express does load, even at 46.6 Kb/s, but is definitely a slow stopping train.

I haven't forgotten you, but the pain in my arm won't let me do much writing. It wasn't caused by my computer, but that sure as hell isn't helping.

The Internet Archive must have had a hard time finding a 1696 copy of the Essays they were allowed to fully open up and photograph. Most archivists are rather protective of their precious old bindings. The Essays article is the most popular I've ever written, and very nearly the worst. Normally I let them go their own way once I've finished them, but I'll at least fix that damned "citation needed". --Antiquary (talk) 15:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

something for you on commons[edit]

I've been going in the direction of books and library furniture, sort of figuring it's familiar to you. Penyulap 13:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You're quiet, there is talkback on my talkpage. Penyulap 15:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

DeviantArt debacle[edit]

I've been watching the exchange between you and Amadscientist, and I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you. He definitely jumped the gun in warning you. There's nothing so serious that it needs to warned against before it's even suggested. Where his argument fails is that warnings on Wikipedia actually do tend to come after someone does something bad, not in anticipation of it -- anticipating wrongdoing is against AGF (unless they have explicitly suggested it). Full disclosure: I'm involved in a long-term dispute with that user, so take this with whatever grain of salt you feel necessary. Equazcion (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing, but thanks for the open door by mentioning my name. Sorry to disapoint, but Assuming Good Faith is not a policy or rule and as you can see Equazcion has no good faith in me. Equazion, this is where you do mind your own business. Please DO NOT Canvass to editors I have contact with you have nothing to do with. Equazcion knows very little about accurate editing on talk pages. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
wp:Canvassing ? omg, is this about my talkpage still or something else ? there was nothing that CAN be canvassed on my talkpage. I need to channel this sort of perspective on reality into some art. Penyulap 18:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Mist lifting off cedars by DJ Schulte.jpg
this is a story you should have a look at and you'll see my approach to uploading copyright images onto wikipedia
Penyulap 19:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Mm, yes, Penyulap is correct. That would be yet another example of your rather original rules. There's nothing that could be considered canvassing here. I gave someone input on an argument he was already engaged in. Canvassing has to do with inviting new people to a discussion. Equazcion (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky style and themes[edit]


I saw your wonderful edits on Russian novelist articles. I wonder if you could expand the Style and Themes section in Fyodor Dostoyevsky. All help appreciated. Regards.--GoPTCN 17:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


Hey, thank you for the barnstar – much appreciated! (And I love your user and talk pages.) Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Guaranteed relief[edit]

The cup that cheers but not inebriates. Lovely. I'm sure your pain pills would hit the spot as well, but that's a road I'm trying not to go down if possible: I need lifestyle changes that will eliminate the cause of the pain. Time to rediscover the lost arts of the couch potato perhaps.

I believe I noticed last week that there was a large whitespace on your talk page, and now that I've allowed time for it to load I can admire the Tom Moore graphic. Amazing! How on earth do people manage to put such things together?

You mention Bodley. I once spent a day at its heart, Duke Humfrey's Library, of which the walls are entirely lined with 15th and 16th century quartos and folios in Old English bindings with those built-in leather straps that help you get them off the shelf. I believe it served as a set for one of the Harry Potter films, and I can well believe it. Unforgettable.

The last of the big Antiquary articles is due out in a day or two, but then again it has been for at least a fortnight. Thereafter it'll be stubs, and that's if I'm lucky. --Antiquary (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I too think Sigurd ended up deserving its GA after you'd cleaned it up, but most of my others improve a good deal in my memory so that I'm rather appalled when I occasionally revisit them. Your big collaborations with Evermore2 stand head and shoulders over anything of mine. Its a shame they can't be properly honoured without so much pre-hassle.

Bodley stamps its title-pages so as to reduce the market value of the books to book-thieves once they've had to rip them out. Fly-leaves and so on wouldn't work as well. They also stamp random pages inside in the hope that the thief won't notice, and will be caught out by the assiduous antiquarian bookseller, who can then keep the thief talking while he reaches under the counter, presses the emergency button and waits for the police to scream up and storm the building...all right, I'm drawing on my imagination a little now. They also stamp those books to annoy you personally. God, the things I heard the Bodleian librarians saying about you when I was there! --Antiquary (talk) 10:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Gulf of Arabia[edit]

Hi, INeverCry. I would like to say that your notice about speedy deletion of Gulf of Arabia was posted at Gralo (talk · contribs · count) talk page incorrectly. First of all, this user is inactive about 5 years, so he can't recently create any article. Second, what he created 5 years ago was a legitimate redirect to Arabian Gulf which is a disambiguous page. The redirect was replaced with text you nominated for speedy deletion by شحلوطط (talk · contribs · count) whom you did not notified. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Annya Sand[edit]

First, thanks for adding Annya's page to the category that you listed. can you help a little bit further. I would like to add a biography in Russian. Is this possible on the same page? I did try but it was rejected by the system and I am now researching the best way to achieve this. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again,

Nick — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngrbreeze (talkcontribs) 15:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Beves of Hamtoun[edit]

Hi, I'm back. So you're going big big big, eh? My plans are definitely in the opposite direction, but you know better than me what will suit your health. I take a different view of secondhand books as well: I only recognize two conditions, "Pages missing" and "Perfect". All the books on my own shelves fall more or less in the Perfect category as far as I'm concerned, but you might demur.

On the brink of uploading my new article I find myself facing a procedural question. It's to be called Beves of Hamtoun, and it's about a Middle English romance, but my proposed title already exists as a redirect to Bevis of Hampton, the article on the hero of that romance (and of many others in various languages). Should I post on the Bevis talk page to say what I want to do, or should I just barge straight on? Or maybe consult the redirect's creator, who is still an active editor? The Bevis article's creator is an IP, now indefinitely blocked. What do you think I should do? --Antiquary (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh of course. I'm sure you're right. Provided there isn't too much debugging I should have it uploaded tonight, but failing that it'll have to wait till the weekend. --Antiquary (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Never again, never again. Now I'm off to saw both my arms off and put them in iced water. --Antiquary (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh yes, that's a brilliant picture, and one I've never seen before. I was going to suggest two others in case you drew a blank, namely and . Both are illustrations from Andrew Lang's retelling of the story, now published under a creative commons licence, but that puts them at one remove from the romance itself. There's also this page: . If you click on the scroll at the top you get to the first page of the Auchinleck Manuscript version of Beves, but there are probably technical and/or copyright problems in the way of using that.

I'm sure there is still copyediting to do, and on Sunday I'll do it, but yesterday I'd reached what I call the wall of revision, at which it becomes impossible for me to read my own work any more. --Antiquary (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You're still thinking of GAN? Wow! I didn't think it was that good. That's an interesting prospect, but given that I don't know how much work would be asked of us or whether my health will be getting better or worse I worry that you might find yourself lumbered again. I think I would only want to try that if you agreed in advance that you were quite ready to give the GAN up if it stopped being fun. --Antiquary (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I hate to curb your generous enthusiasm, and indeed I'm not against a GAN in principle, but I think I want to take a few days out to see how my body holds up, and to take a considered second look at the article and see if there are ways of improving it. Is that OK by you? --Antiquary (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Goodness, you did need to do rather a lot of copyedits, and for that much thanks. I daren't look to find out what they all were.

As for the GAN idea, I think it'd be unwise of me to make such a commitment when my ability to edit is going steadily downhill. At some point in the future I might be able to come to a different decision, and indeed I would now if I could be sure a GAN would be an easy operation, but we both know these things can't be predicted. You don't enjoy the hassle, neither do I, and for me the pleasure of carving a second notch on my userpage could never equal the first. Been there, done that. I like your idea of unofficial GAs, and I reckon your good opinion of the article entitles me to one, and with that I'll be satisfied. --Antiquary (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

poetry ratings[edit]

Dear User:INeverCry: I apologize for any rudeness which I may have have had, in my comments regarding you on Wikipedia. Thank you for taking the time and effort to evaluate poetry related articles: certainly this is an area which I have had a reluctance to address, or get involved with. Indeed, it is hard for me to fathom Wikipedia categorizations and evaluations, in a general way. However, there are certain considerations from an encyclopedic viewpoint, which I am sure that you have considered before, but which may be worth reflecting upon, more then once or twice, :

  • Chinese poetry has been one of the world's more enduring poetic traditions.
  • There is nothing about a sonnet that separates it from a jueju verse, in terms of importance for online encyclopedia poetry content. Indeed, and in good faith, I hope you do concur that it it is a case of Wikipedia:Systemic bias to conclude otherwise.
  • From your User contributions log:

"08:05, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . Talk:I Am Australian ‎ (WikiProject assessment) (top) 06:44, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+533)‎ . . User talk:Dcattell ‎ (→‎Huaqing Pool: new section) (top) 06:32, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-13)‎ . . Talk:Huaqing Pool ‎ (article is about a place not the quoted poem) (top) 06:32, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+356)‎ . . Talk:Huaqing Pool ‎ (→‎Poetry related?: rsp) 04:17, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+38)‎ . . Talk:Höfuðlausn ‎ (WikiProject assessment) (top) 04:17, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . Talk:Hush'd Be the Camps To-Day ‎ (WikiProject assessment) (top) 04:16, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+15)‎ . . Hush'd Be the Camps To-Day ‎ (stub tag) (top) 04:15, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+37)‎ . . Talk:David Huerta ‎ (WikiProject assessment) (top) 04:14, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . Talk:Huaqing Pool ‎ (not poetry related) 04:13, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+49)‎ . . Talk:Huaigu (poetry) ‎ (WikiProject assessment) 04:04, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+21)‎ . . Talk:Mikhail Horowitz ‎ (WikiProject assessment) (top) 04:02, 26 May 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+23)‎ . . Talk:Homecoming (poem) ‎ (WikiProject assessment)"

From this, I may have mistakenly assumed that your Wikipedia activities were conducted in a bit of a hurry (a good thing, in most cases), and I did wish to express that in some cases it may be better to decrease the pace of some activities, however I do not wish to in any way impede any of your valid contributions to Wikipedia.
  • Globally, and poetically, Classical Chinese poetry is of top importance to poetry generally (influences include modern, Beat, etc.)
  • Huaqing pool is related to the An Lushan disturbances, which have had a great impact upon Chinese poetry, and poetry in the modern world, in general (not to mention that this is very well referenced).
  • I am not claiming to be an expert in Wikipedia Project categorization, and I do not claim "Huaqing Pool" as "my article"; however, I do urge you to give due respect to Chinese poetry. Dcattell (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


I see from your created / expanded pages that you are doing the Nikolais of this world a service; I, as one, applaud your efforts! Nikthestoned 10:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

re: Poetry article importance assessments[edit]

Rating poetry articles for Wikiproject poetry is a huge task. I looked at some of the assessment lists, and they seem generally reasonable. My question is would one assess articles based on Chinese (or Russian) poetry based on their importance within their own traditions, upon their importance to English language poetry (since this is en.wikipedia), or upon importance to modern poetry from a some sort of global perspective? Maybe there is some documentation regarding this which I haven't found yet? I see that there is an outline of poetry being developed, but so far it seems to be somewhat random.

More specifically, regarding Chinese poetry, there are a number of Wikipedia editors that have shown themselves knowledgeable in this area: for example User:White whirlwind, User:Sevilledade, User:Philipmerrill (who has actually done some work in the categorization area), User:CWH, and others (some perhaps inactive). Assessing the importance of Chinese poetry-related articles is made much more difficult by the fact that most of the related articles don't really address this much. However, major influences can be seen in Beat poetry, Haiku (derived from -- or preponderantly influenced by -- Jueju, not that one could tell from either article!), Ezra Pound, and so on. Part of the problem is that some of the basic articles remain to be written. Modern poetry is merely a disambiguation page! Also, World poetry does not exist, and the existing (main) Poetry page is problematically oriented toward canonical English poetry and its Greek, Latin, and French influences ("Western traditions").

I'm sure that your work in this area will end up being very helpful in regard to poetry-related content on Wikipedia. Dcattell (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Poetry Project Barnstar[edit]

Quill and ink.svg Poetry Project Barnstar
For all that you have done in recent days to keep the WikiProject Poetry page up to date... Thank you! Your hard work is noticed and appreciated. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

re: Pic[edit]

It's better, but I believe you should upload your edited version to another file name. The original daguerreotype, uncropped and unfinished, should be represented in Commons. As you can see here, there are already several restored versions of the image, but the high-res original version is no longer represented because you've replaced it. I would prefer to see the high-res, untouched version on Dickinson's article because it is so historically significant. Could you please move your retouched version and restore the original? Thanks. María (yllosubmarine) 12:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but you asked for my feedback. ;) I'm not asking for you to do away with your version, or even revert. Rather, I asked that you move it to a new file name so we can keep the original image intact under its original title. There are numerous versions of this image -- high and lo-res, retouched and original -- already listed at the Commons. Your addition can remain there with the rest, but I don't think it should replace the original. The scratches are part of the daguerreotype's history and character, and removing them leaves the image somewhat fuzzy. If you want to open up a discussion, be my guest. However I think my opinion is a very valid one, and I don't see it as being an issue for you to simply create a new file name for your version of the image. Projects will still be able to view it and link to it. Thanks! María (yllosubmarine) 17:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The Dickinson article isn't mine, and rightly so! I'm not suggesting any change be made to the article itself. Really, the article need not be changed at all. What I suggest you do is undue this change and instead upload your version of the image to a new file name. That way your work is preserved but so is the original upload. The idea is to give editors across the projects a choice of what image(s) they wish to use. Does that make sense? María (yllosubmarine) 19:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
While I don't appreciate the second nod to ownership on my part, I understand your frustration. It took two whole minutes to re-upload your image here. It can be seen in the Dickinson category. Feel free to edit as you see fit. María (yllosubmarine) 19:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


I don't think it's necessary. A dab is strictly a navigational tool, regulated by WP:MOSDAB, and the fact that all or most of its entries happen to relate to Russia is often purely coincidental. If anything is wrong with a dab, the task of fixing it falls onto the members of the Disambig WikiProject; there's next to nothing WP:RUSSIA members can do about it from WP:RUSSIA's standpoint, nor do I believe anyone is interested in tracking dabs which happen to include Russia-specific entries. That said, if you have a situation in mind where having Russia-specific dabs might be handy, it should probably be pointed out at WT:RUSSIA. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 7, 2012; 18:29 (UTC)


It's actually a set index article—a bastard child of Father Disambiguation and Mother List (with Family Friend Article sometimes playing a role) :) Set indices are WikiProject-specific, and are treated the way the WikiProject into the auspices of which it falls desires it to be treated. Set indices on last names are covered by WikiProject Anthroponymy, which tends to treat them as article/list combos (the idea being that it should be possible to write about the origins and history of any last name, and that blurb would then be followed by a list of people with that last name). WP:RUSSIA has set indices on districts and inhabited localities (like this and this or, in a less developed state, like this). Those are treated as lists (including in assessments), but don't normally have stub tags. With last name pages, I'd assess them as List-class regardless of whether they have stub tags or not, because that's what they are usually the closest to, but you might also want to inquire about this on the WikiProject Anthroponymy's talk page to make sure that's what they do. I don't normally assess pages about last names so my advice is just a hunch.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 8, 2012; 01:12 (UTC)


I clicked on your page to come see you, but I had forgotten our exchange about the little protester, and had a surprise laugh when your page opened up.. :) It doesn't get old, not yet that's for sure... Penyulap 05:45, 10 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Neither of us dead yet?[edit]

Hi, and sorry to see your health's playing up. Neck again? Hope it clears up anyway. I'm finding it beneficial to make WP an occasional self-indulgence, and my new ergonomic mouse also helps (why aren't they all ergonomic?).

I've failed to keep my next article down to stub proportions (Mem: must try harder). It's a biographical one for a change, about an early popularizer of Middle English poetry, significant poet in his own right, and friend of Sir Walter: all in all he has "Reserved for Antiquary" written all over him. I'll let you guess for the moment.

Since you made large improvements to Essays (Francis Bacon) you might be interested in this recent edition of them. Recognize the elegantly justified passage on the front cover? --Antiquary (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Goodbye for now[edit]

Oh, this is a shame. I don't know whether WP is getting too much for you physically or if it's just the wear and tear on the nerves. If it's a health thing then I'm sure you're right to give Wikipedia a rest, at least until the trouble clears up, as I hope it will. If you've just had enough of the thankless task of correcting other people's mistakes and clearing up after them then I can only make sure that it isn't entirely thankless. This place is much the better for your hours, days and months of hard work on it, and I personally have learned a great deal from you and really enjoyed working with you. I still hope to see you around here again, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. --Antiquary (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Get well soon![edit]

Sorry to hear about your health issues, get well soon! Сол-раз (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts are with you[edit]

I want to let you know, that I will be thinking about you, for a long time to come. Penyulap 03:22, 13 Jun 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Hope you get well soon! GoPTCN 09:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

re Barnstar[edit]

Thanks for the Barnstar! I'm not sure about whether my articles are "excellent" (!), but certainly the number of red links in the bibliographies of prominent Victorian novelists is something in urgent need of attention! Moswento talky 07:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

I thought maybe you just needed a break, or at any rate I hoped so. If I threw myself into the hurly-burly as much as you do I'm sure I'd end up wondering why I was putting up with so much. You don't feel like lazing in the calms of composition, like me? I don't share your dissatisfaction (if you still feel it) with Wikipedia as a project. I'm so beguiled by the idea of a completely open-access crowd-sourced encyclopaedia that I pass over its many failures and dwell on its few (as yet) successes. How astonishing that almost a hundred good poetry articles, on your own showing, should have come from us riff-raff! What else can we do? --Antiquary (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:R. F. Delderfield.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:R. F. Delderfield.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Re-located, No relevant incoming links

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

George Gissing[edit]

Until you suggested it, I didn't actually have an intention of working on the George Gissing article itself, just his novels. But now you've planted the idea in my mind, and work has begun! Good work on your contributions too, and I notice J3Mrs doing some helpful copyediting. Moswento talky 18:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, INeverCry. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

re Barnstar[edit]

Thank you for the Barnstar — you're much too kind! I haven't done a lot yet, so this is a real encouragement to keep working on these articles.KiwiTim (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Quality rather than quantity. ;) INeverCry 18:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The Three Clerks[edit]

Great stuff! An all-time speed record there (although the article was showing up in Google even earlier). --Antiquary (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I probably had no right to do The Three Clerks, not being a Trollope man, but I thought it'd diversify my portfolio a little. I'll keep my sticky fingers off La Vendée and his other remaining redlinks. You're welcome, of course, to correct the mistakes and add some praise from modern critics: damned if I could find any. I couldn't bring myself to remove the stub tag, by the way, even as the draft grew, because it was my way of saying "I can beat this WP habit". Seems I can't.

I like Henry James's view of War and Peace, especially as he was hardly a model of pithy concision himself.

More pdfs! Thanks again. I really wasn't hinting. I'm coming to appreciate such things more as my arms lose the knack of holding a book up. When secondhand Kindles come down to about £2 I'll probably buy one. --Antiquary (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not an acronym I use very often, but there are occasions when one can only say OMG! This would be a good occasion to slip some new Trollope articles past me, because I'll be downloading pdfs for the next few weeks. Now I'm going to ogle the list of books again. Многие большое спасибо, товарищ. --Antiquary (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Tula ProduKt[edit]

Thanks for assessing the article that I just created. I see that you are experienced with Russian articles and was wondering if you speak Russian. The reason I am asking is because I was wondering if this article is also in the Russian Wikipedia? --Morning277 (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Missile warning[edit]

Well, it's not actually all that surprising that we only now got an article. I don't recall having anyone around interested in this topic until now. The subject is most definitely real and notable (as evidenced both by the sources used in the article and this). I've assessed it as C/Mid; feel free to change if you disagree.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 22, 2012; 13:33 (UTC)

Chekhov stories[edit]

Hi, INeverCry! I found so many Chekhov stories on the French Wiki.[10] I'm going to work on a few. Please take a look and help as you see fit. Best, Сол-раз (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the quantity of the French Chekhov story articles. I'm going to just work on two or three to see what happens. Сол-раз (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
PS: Your planned work sounds great as always. Сол-раз (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The raw material is the stories, which I am rereading now, to see if I agree with each fr synopsis. That's most of the work. Сол-раз (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I have seen Evvy's work on en and on ru. Very impressive-- like I've said before. Сол-раз (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ellis, Scott, etc.[edit]

More thanks for more pdfs. I've been downloading one after another going "Oo, Nostromo, oo, the Nibelungenlied" and so on. When I was a kid Penguin Classics defined the greats of world literature as far as I was concerned, but my loyalties have gradually gone over to Oxford World Classics. They're always edited by specialists who give reliably good translations, introductions and notes, whereas Penguin sometimes used to draw on a few scholarly hacks who appeared to just swot up on their classics and then move on.

I was very pleased and surprised that Ellis got a DYK. On reading the article over it seemed fairly good, but it should really have more on his poetry.

Yes, I like your Scott userbox. It's nice and legible, unlike all those orange-on-orange and green-on-green ones some people make. I take it you're evoking the Scottish flag by the shade of blue and the white border, which is probably all that can be done in that line, but I'm afraid that'll probably pass over most people's head. The Raeburn portrait looks a bit muddy and indistinct, as most pictures do when reduced to those proportions, but there's a brighter version of it here. You might also consider the Chantrey bust or the Landseer portrait (though that does make him look a bit of a simpleton). By the way, what did you make of Waverley in the end? Come now, tell the truth and shame the devil, did you give it up? But I joke: I see you've not only designed the box but put it on your own page. --Antiquary (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Kitten (06) by Ron.jpg

Just found your user page after reviewing edits to Herb Tam. You are awesome!

Aichikawa (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot[edit]

Thanks for the help and the wish. When work has progresses to a significant degree, can I request you to take another look? Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to take a look whenever you like. INeverCry 04:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for all your work on poetry articles. It is seen and appreciated. Cheers. Span (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

George Crabbe[edit]

If I were you, I'd try to get it in the WP:GAN queue while the elimination drive is going on. You may get someone to review it very quickly. I am not someone who really reviews poet bios.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with the GA nomination. I haven't had time to look at the article lately, and won't have the time this morning; but if you think it'd help the cause, I'd be glad to go through and try to do some copy-editing this afternoon. Ammodramus (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Went through George Crabbe and made some copy-edits; hope that they improve the article's chances at a GA.
If you've got the time and inclination, I think it'd be a good idea to break up the section titled "Critical reception". Much of that is about critical reception; but there's also some material about Crabbe's writing style, notably "Crabbe's poetry was predominantly in the form of heroic couplets". That feels out of place in the section. I'd suggest creating a separate section on form (meter, rhyme scheme, etc.) and themes in Crabbe's work, and following that section with a more focused one on critical reception. Ammodramus (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to learn that you've withdrawn the GA nomination. I sympathize with your difficulties with the critical-reception business, since I find myself in much the same boat re. Trollope. I'm fine with writing plot summaries and with the history of the work (writing circumstances, publication history, etc.), but I start feeling out of my depth when it comes to themes, current criticism, etc.
Your time and effort haven't been wasted: you've still got a very good article, even if it's not a Good Article. Ammodramus (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Jayne Mansfield biographies[edit]

One excellent idea. Please, go ahead with it. Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Great. I was thinking in the same line when you proposed the new format for the biography books. Aditya(talkcontribs) 08:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Yayyy. Absolutely awesome. Is it also possible to merge the references section with the book section? It's essentially the same set of books. Problem is that the harvrefs/shortcites need to link to the reference books (did I manage to mean what I meant?). Aditya(talkcontribs) 03:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Okies. Lemme give it a try on my own first. Aditya(talkcontribs) 04:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


Book barnstar2.png The Literary Barnstar
For your many services to literature and especially poetry. Span (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
A very nice surprise. Thank you. Smilie2.gif INeverCry 19:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Health issues[edit]

I know those things so well – and they can have the most dramatic effect on us, right through every aspect of us. They can be bastards. My heart goes out to you (along with any kind of good vibes which you might find acceptable). Pace yourself; take on enough challenges to be fun and stimulating, but not so many that they begin to overwhelm you. Always remember the benefits of good food, fresh air, and plenty of water! (most people are borderline dehydrated most of the time, and it has hard knock-on effects on everything else). Many hugz; look after yourself well. Pesky (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Your kind words are very much appreciated. I just wish there were more nice folks around, both here on wikipedia and in the wide world. I have to admit, though, that I happen to enjoy the occasional argument or heated discussion. That might come from the half of me that's Irish (my Mother is full Irish, and her and I really go at it now and then; nothing personal of course, we both love to "discuss" politics and social issues, and we always end with laughs and smiles :). My disability is certainly a bastard of the highest order, but I deal with it ok, and the kindness of others certainly helps. One thing that wikipedia does for me is to take my mind off my wretched body a bit. Anyways, I won't ramble on, but rather return the hugs and say thanks. INeverCry 21:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha! Wikipedia as displacement activity! Gawds, yes ... and thank you! Pesky (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Q re assessment of book on American Struggle for Independence[edit]

Hello! Thanks for your assessment just now of a book article at Talk:Resistance, Politics, and the American Struggle for Independence, 1765-1775. I noticed that you assessed the article as class C, and that you appeared to have done the assessment quite rapidly, since your previous edit was only 1 minute earlier. If you have time, I'd be interested to know your suggestions for improving the article (i.e., what it was missing), so that it might become class B or higher. Feel free to respond on the article's talk page too. Thanks -- Presearch (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for your response - knowing your thoughts is very useful. Those all surely are bona-fide quotes (since I'm careful about that), but obviously that wasn't clear; and your stylistic suggestions sound good. And thanks also for your suggestions about processes for getting further input for improving the article. All the best -- Presearch (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for barnstar - Fyodor Dostoyevsky[edit]

Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Richard asr (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand[edit]


sorry, I am very quirky, and seem illogical at times, and often I'll appear to put a vote in which is opposite to how I feel on an issue when it is quite obvious that a single vote has absolutely no hope of changing the outcome... but I don't understand how you feel about my quirky actions, I'd like to clarify if I can. Penyulap 01:17, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I certainly prefer comedy to drama. ;) INeverCry 01:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, problem, comedy and drama go together for me like toothpaste in high heels. Penyulap 02:35, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)

The Siege of Malta and Bizarro[edit]

There I was, staking my claim to be the last man to write a Scott novel article on WP with The Siege of Malta, when I found that many people call Bizarro a novel as well, so I had to cobble together some sort of stub on that. Actually, Bizarro also gets called a novella and a short story. I think perhaps it must only survive in short-story length and people aren't sure how long it would have been when complete. Ironically, these are the only two works of Scott fiction I've never read. I never will read them either, not just because secondhand copies start at 50 quid but because they're both by all accounts pretty dreadful. The Scott descendants who, one always used to hear, had blocked publication forevermore had it right, I suspect. I doubt if you'll be able to do anything by way of illustrating either page, should you be thinking that way, unless something about Malta in 1565 turns up. --Antiquary (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks again for the illustrations. The EUP book cover was the ideal solution, of course, but it never occurred to me that WP rules would allow it. I'm not finished with Sir Walter yet, but there's still quite a few poetry articles to do before I need pay attention to his plays. Even doggerel like "The Field of Waterloo" has some spirit to it, but the plays, they're just dreary. What impelled those great poets, almost all of them from Gray to Tennyson, to write unactable, unreadable blank-verse tragedies? Byron's tragedies I except. Now there's a thought... --Antiquary (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer's Barnstar[edit]

Reviewer's Barnstar.png The Reviewer's Barnstar
For clearing out the backlog of unassessed book and novel articles. That was well over a thousand articles. Your effort is recognized and appreciated. Thanks. maclean (talk) 06:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I cannot help but observe...[edit]

Have you noticed that lately you seem to be collecting more awards than you used to ? Penyulap 10:58, 18 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I think more of these should be given out generally. Anything positive and uplifting is always needed and appreciated. I love finding deserving people to give these to. The reviewer star above is especially nice. INeverCry 16:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Reviewer's Barnstar.png The Reviewer's Barnstar
I realize this is your second one of these in as many days, but your hard work deserves the recognition. Thanks for your efforts assessing for WP:WikiProject Human rights--the project was long overdue for it, and it'll be a big help! Khazar2 (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Brian Moore[edit]

Thank you very much for the barnstar - my first! You're most kind. And well done for tidying up the Brian Moore template.

I wondered had you read Brian Moore's novels? I've managed to read all of them, some more than once, but I've met very few others who have read any of his books: such a shame as his prose is very accessible yet his novels are so thought-provoking. Headhitter (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Marino Faliero, Doge of Venice[edit]

Sorry, for the conflicts. I'll wait for you to finish. BTW, I find (and I know I am in the minority) citation templates and hyphens in ISBNs mainly cause disadvantages, primarily making editing more difficult, and adding no useful information. (Their usage however should be consistent, so I suppose I should add them.) --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't very familiar with the sfn refs. I do prefer the short style, which I knew about from WP:CITESHORT. The links from the notes to the sources are a nice feature. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Marino is hardly my best page, and I mainly like it for a reason no-one else will appreciate, namely that I managed to keep it down to borderline stub length. I hope the removal of your health tag shows at least a little improvement, INeverCry, but I'm afraid my wrist is giving me hell, so long articles are out for the foreseeable future. Those mountains you've put up look great, especially if you're looking for somewhere cool in the Nevada summer. So also do the new pictures at Marino (flawless French accent, btw).

The original footnote style was chosen so I could give a link to each page I was citing, since I did rely rather a lot on Marchand's edition and Quennell's selection of Byron's letters, and a casual reader might think I was drawing on the letters themselves, which would be original research. In fact I was scrupulously citing the editorial matter. All this is, I suppose, fussing about nothing, and only worth bringing up if someone slaps an OR tag on it. It's a shame, though, that sfn's short citation style, otherwise so convenient and neat-looking, doesn't allow of more links.

Now on to Wordie, I think. --Antiquary (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. As for your toothache I find that distraction is the best way to deal with it (short of actually visiting a dentist of course) so Wikipedia therapy is probably a good treatment.

If you only knew what a major operation it is for me to scroll down on Google Books! But for most others it isn't, so I'm sure you're right and I'll leave well alone. Picking at nits that aren't there isn't especially useful. --Antiquary (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

cool water can help manipulate the pain in case of emergency, (it has an addictive effect, so stopping is a worry, even though the initial relief is fast). If the nerve is exposed, crush cloves close to it, or try to find clove oil. Penyulap 20:16, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
My friend recommended ice-water and powdered sugar, but I don't know... ;) I've been putting off getting it yanked for over a year, so I'll be making a visit to the dreaded chair soon. Atleast the whole deal ends with some nice Vicodins. ;) INeverCry 20:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Be wary because the colder the water the harder it is to stop once you've started. Sugar does nothing. Honey can have a once-off effect on some things. Penyulap 21:34, 23 Jul 2012 (UTC)
I thoroughly endorse the warning. Cold water works fine at first, but then you're chasing the dragon. --Antiquary (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jan Gaston Rawls[edit]

Hello INeverCry. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jan Gaston Rawls, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Does not seem like an obvious hoax to me. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Sergey Karasev[edit]

Thanks for the contribution. Actually I had added one reference before you did, but didn't remove the delete proposal tag since the guy who put it might be angry somehow :) Thanks anyway, have a nice day, please feel free to remove this.Tamburello (talk) 08:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Arthur Morrison[edit]

That's an enormous improvement to the Morrison article. I've never read Child of the Jago, but I once came across one or two of his Martin Hewitt stories in an anthology and was really impressed. I seem to remember the Hewitt books turned out to be almost as unobtainable as you say the Newens biog is. --Antiquary (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Child of the Jago is a good read. Rich Farmbrough, 01:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC).
Hi Rich. I had been thinking of reading this in 1st ed pdf form for quite a while, but when I saw the new Oxford World's Classics edition, that decided me. It's now on my short-list. I've read a few of his Tales of Mean Streets and liked them. INeverCry 01:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You got Pwned[edit]

Giggle translate.png

I was looking through the order of merit, and was delighted to come across your name and page, and with both a regular and giggle translate window open, this is what it came up with. Har har Penyulap 15:28, 25 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Face-smile.svg With GT, the main page of the category says that I'm one of the "customers who own Russian language at a basic level". It fails to mention that, in my case atleast, the product is defective. I'm just glad that most of the folks over at WP:RU aren't using good ol' GT, if any of them ever look at my page, which I doubt. INeverCry 17:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Photographer Barnstar.png The Photographer's Barnstar
Thanks for your contribution of the portrait for Rebecca Hammond Lard. David Holmer (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for the barnstar!--SGCM (talk) 03:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thanks for your appreciation. I see you've made lots of contributions to articles about literature. Great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grushenka (talkcontribs) 00:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Bell (Wordsworth)[edit]

Another of my slighter efforts, but since it's by one of your bugbears (written before he turned his coat and published after) you may not like it. The footnotes are formatted as if they were done with sfn, but in many cases aren't. This is because I was mainly using books on my own shelves which are only available in snippets on Google Books, so sfn's links wouldn't be very useful to the reader. This way he gets a quote to corroborate my statements, while that way he'd only be reassured that the book exists. It's the only flaw I can see with sfn.

Hope your toothache is better, but if not you could always try chanting John Heath-Stubbs's "Charm Against the Tooth Ache". If you do it with absolute faith in its effectiveness it works infallibly, just like everything else, but I fear there is an unbeliever in the room. --Antiquary (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Btw, the article cites two books, A Wordsworth Chronology and William Wordsworth: A Critical Anthology, which come from series that might interest you. The Macmillan Author Chronologies give you the bare facts about a writer's life without interpretation – perfect for biographical articles. The Penguin Critical Anthologies are like the Critical Heritage series, but with slightly more emphasis on 20th century critics. I only mention them in case you want any more religious experiences. --Antiquary (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't really care for Wordsworth the man, because of his switch to conservatism, and even more for his abandoning of his daughter, but his poetry is a different thing. His "We Are Seven" is one my favorites. Many of the great men and women I read don't appeal to me on a personal level for one reason or another; Coleridge's opium-saturated religious hypocrisy, Byron's snotty treatment of Keats and others; but I love their works. It's the same with actors, sportspeople, and musicians: alot of the time we have to enjoy what they do or create, and look past the faulty person, just as we hope that others will overlook some of our many imperfections.
My tooth will be gone soon enough, but I feel for old John. As for the rest of it, as long as there's no believers in the room, we're all ok. ;) The last time I went to the dentist, he said the following a few minutes into the extraction: "That's not what I wanted to see." The tooth ended up coming out in 7 or 8 pieces, and taking over an hour. This one's it's old neighbor, and anything easier this time around is doubtful. INeverCry 22:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I've added the frontispiece illustration from the first edition. I've never read the poem, so you might want to add an explanation to the basic caption I used. INeverCry 23:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but that's one of the reasons I like Sir Walter: you don't have to avoid looking at the writer's personality.

Nice frontispiece, very atmospheric, though gloomy and indistinct. I'm not sure I quite understand what's in the picture, apart from Swaledale and the pining ass. I can't tell whether the figure sitting in the foreground is Peter or the drowned man's son; either way the artist has invented the dog. Well, no matter, I've sidestepped the problem by adding a very general summary to the caption. --Antiquary (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Scott does come across as a thoroughly good person. I have the same feeling for Dickens, Gaskell, the Brontes (though Charlotte's criticism of The Tenant and Wuthering Heights bothers me a bit), Austen, and Keats. I can't think of a single Russian author who fits the bill completely: Chekhov is close, but his shabby treatment of Lidia Mizinova is a deal-breaker for me; Shchedrin also comes close as does Uspensky and Pisemsky. INeverCry 18:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you could[edit]

I hope this message find you in good spirits. I just thought that I would ask... I tried to upload my first image from the instructions the administrator gave me in his email for this image: File:Summer_2012_Cover.jpeg but now it has a tag for speddy deletion. Wasn't sure what I did wrong. If you don't get the time or feel up to it, I understand. Take good care of yourself! --David Holmer (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, OTCS fixed it. But, I am leaving this meassage to let you know that I do appreciate everything you do here and hope you are feeling well! --David Holmer (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, David. If you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask. INeverCry 22:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Troy Book[edit]

Good additions. I couldn't immediately see a way of sectioning the page without giving a different heading to almost every sentence, but your way works. Your title page is good but the manuscript illumination would be better. At first glance I wasn't sure whether Lydgate's Siege of Troy was the same as Troy Book, since his output was vast, and in medieval lit the titles aren't always stable; but on checking out the picture file's link to the Manchester website I see that it is. English MS 1, eh? That has a ring to it.

Now back to Anna, Part 2. Will she or won't she? --Antiquary (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that other MS 1 as well... As for the illumination, I'll let you do the switch if you want, so that you can give it a proper caption. INeverCry 02:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. I hadn't realized it'd be that easy.

Good luck with the Commons admin bid – I know Commons will be a lot better if you have more power to make it so. I would vote for you, of course, but that I'm not registered over there, and registering solely to vote wouldn't look good.

She did. --Antiquary (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks much better than the clunky old black-and-gray thing I uploaded. As for the commons admin request, I'm depending on folks voting on my merit and qualifications. I have 7 support votes already. :) INeverCry 20:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed you switched over to the Edmonds version of Анна Каренина. I hope you like it better than the P and V. I read Anna in the summer of 2003. One of my all-time favorite literary quotes is what Babel said of Lev Nikolaievich: "If the world itself could pick up a pen, it would write like Tolstoy." This little volume on him by Gorky might interest you. I'm reading Sketches by Boz at the moment myself. INeverCry 20:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


Interesting. You could always decide that that's your icon because you're a stickler for copyright observance. I have, by the way, no connection with Tarp Wappen or any other part of Schleswig-Holstein; I only chose a comic heraldic owl because I thought it suggested erudition, mediaevalism, and not taking yourself too seriously.

Incidentally, I visited your user page for the first time in a while, and I'm just blown away by your new portrait gallery. I won't steal your idea, but I really wish I'd thought of it first. --Antiquary (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I doesn't bother me thinking of myself as a bit of a scribbler, or being reminded of it by gadgets. ;) Btw, heres another person whose contributions are simply mind-blowing: User:Wehwalt. With folks around who live so large as that, my own smallness seems so much more the norm.
Thanks for the compliment on my portrait gallery. It took a decent ammount of time to construct, what with having to enter the original dimensions of each image, and especially sizing them so that the frames look seamless. I just needed a userpage change. You should take a quick look at my commons userpage: commons:User:INeverCry. That animation was a great find. I just wish they had one featuring Buster Keaton, or Charlie Chaplin. INeverCry 18:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't been responding to you for a while, but I haven't been here, on account of how, as a userbox once said, this user makes homemade jam and/or marmalade and this is the jam-making season, especially for those who collect their own fruit from the hedgerows. That's been as much work as my wrist would take.

Your portrait gallery, on further thought, would be rather hazardous for me since I'd be forever fiddling with the choice of subjects.

Congratulations on your Commons adminship. I can't quite work out what happened to the Mark Kharitonov DYK bid, but it seems Crabbe is still up in the air. Surely even the harshest reviewer won't ask for much to be done with it.

I'm increasingly impressed by Anna's combining flawless construction with magnificent set-pieces (the harvesting haymaking scene, the horse-race, etc.) in a way hardly any other writer manages. Yes, I do now accept it's as great a novel as everyone says, but I'm still skipping any chapter that features Kitty. --Antiquary (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It's good to hear from you. The jam-making sounds great, I just wonder if jam can be made with low/no sugar? I have a big history of diabetes in my family, and sugar makes me feel not so good. The only fruit that I know of around here is Juniper berries, so maybe I could make gin. But I don't drink alcohol, so that's out.

I've only been an admin for 3 days, but I'm already in the top 60 of active admins. ;) With my love of repetitve tasks, I'll be in the top 20 or 10 soon enough.

The Mark Kharitonov DYK has been promoted, so it shouldn't be too long before it's on the main page. As for Crabbe, I think the article is GA worthy, but we'll see.

When it comes to Tolstoy, I prefer War and Peace, though Pierre is a bit wishy-washy, and the ending to the story is quite sugary. The last 50+ pages are in the form of an essay on war and history, and are tough reading. You should try some of his shorter stuff, especially The Death of Ivan Ilyich, "The Raid", "The Woodfelling", and The Sebastopol Sketches. INeverCry 19:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Some Russian authors[edit]


you may be interested in creating or expanding some of the articles listed here. Regards.--Kürbis () 10:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I did a new article, and those certainly are interesting, along with the Pushkin Prize winners and many others. I've also got some interest in getting a few DYKs. I have an article at GAN right now, alongside Fyodor Mikhailovich, who I don't doubt will pass easily. I just hope mine goes the same way. INeverCry 18:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

George Crabbe[edit]

Well done on George Crabbe. Good luck with the GAN. Span (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Some good luck certainly wouldn't hurt. I've done all I can with Crabbe, so I figured I'd give GA a shot once and for all. INeverCry 18:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks[edit]

Hi, INeverCry... I don't think we've crossed paths before, to my knowledge, but I wanted to thank you for the lovely surprise you left on my page. As I said on my talkpage, it was completely unexpected and a very nice thing to log in to. Your kind words are sincerely appreciated. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Mark Kharitonov[edit]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved![edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email your Wikipedia username.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to
  • If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Kafka's stories[edit]

Please help me to know which project is correct for Kafka's short stories and their collections. "Novel" seems not right for short stories, and the collections are a "book", no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)