User talk:Anna Roy/Archive 7

Yves Bonnefoy

The article contains two valid references which cover virtually everything in the article. If you wish, they can be repeated as inline references for each paragraph but the tag is certainly not valid. For you information, I also intend to expand on the article with additional sources. I certainly agree that the article needs expanding but for what it now presents it is adequately referenced.--Ipigott (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

You will see that I have now embarked on further expansion. I think you will agree the tag can be removed. Thank you for taking an interest in my work. It's always good to see there are people around who keep a check on what's going on.--Ipigott (talk) 11:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can imagine, there is no way a reader can know that two citations given in the article source the whole thing unless you let them know. Here only one paragraph has any source given at all. Inline citations are there to help the reader go off and check verifiable info. It's not just an anal policy quibble. Some say that the citations lists are the most valuable things WP offers. I appreciate the work you have done on the article. Thanks Span (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I very much appreciated your kind reaction. I must admit I do have a tendency to remove tags if I think a problem has been solved. As you must know, there's a huge problem in Wikipedia with the older articles which were written before inline refs became the order of the day. Yves Bonnefoy goes back to 2005 (perhaps even to 2003 as it is partly based on the French) and that was why I thought it was necessary to make some improvements. Together with some other editors, I am actually campaigning to encourage more interest in improving referencing in general and reviving older articles which have become rather stale. As you seem interested in the matter yourself, you might perhaps like to look at Dr. Blofeld's talk page and the related user page. Maybe you can help with further progress?--Ipigott (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. It's good work. It's good to remove tags if the questions have been fully solved (eg citations are fully given). Drive-by tagging drives me slightly nuts. I personally think tagging if often used too much and in lazy ways. I encourage editors to fix the problems instead of labelling them. Yves Bonnefoy looks great. Onwards and upwards! Span (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Vuzor/Dimensionaut Review

Hi Span. I've placed the Dimensionaut user page on review, and although I have asked for a reviewer from the WikiProjects to look over it, I would like to also ask if you may take a look. Winkelvi has given his opinion; I would like to hear both your opinion and a third opinion (from the WikiProjects reviewer) if that is all right. That would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Vuzor (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I've added thoughts to the talk page. Span (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war at Dimensionaut. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Edit warriors and those with battleground mentality LOVE to use the excuse: there's no consensus. That excuse is total bullshit. Using "no consensus" is no excuse for edit warring. Why are you even going there and not trying to seek a peaceful solution rather than playing the no consensus card? Surely with your experience here you must have known your reversions would end up being seen as hostile and as agitation. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

One revert is not edit warring. Span (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Fleur Adcock

Hello I notice you have changed "Fleur Adcock" back to "Kareen Fleur Adcock". It is true that Adcock (my mother) was originally named Kareen, but she has always published under the name Fleur Adcock, and eventually changed her legal name to Fleur Adcock by deed poll. She has never used the name Kareen or been called Kareen at any time in her life. If you insist in referring to the name Kareen in the article, I suggest you do so in a footnote rather than giving it such prominence. This is Fleur's express wish, and I made my intial change at her request. Regards Andrew Campbell AndrewTeariki (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Revised sentence: The story tells of a murder of a young black man, and the elderly white man, who seems to have gotten away with the 40-year-old murder. Original sentence: The story tells of a murder of a young black man, and the elderly white man, who seems to have got away with the 40-year-old murder. This is a quote from my computer dictionary: “Get is probably most acceptable when it is used to imply that the subject of the sentence bears at least some responsibility for an event or action.” The subjects of the above sentences are the same: the murder of a young Black man, and the elderly White man. Who was murdered? The young Black man. Who bears the responsibility of the murder? The elderly White man. Who got away with the murder? The elderly White man. He seems to have gotten away with it, not seems to have got away with it. My sentence is grammatically correct. Kellygirlaj (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Luis Cernuda

Thanks for the pointer as to how to refer to poems versus collections re my Luis Cernuda article. I have made the revisions there and also on a couple of other articles I have worked on.

Quevedo (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Span (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reviewer

I've added the reviewer right to your account, as you obviously have the experience to use it properly if/when needed. INeverCry 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much INC. Best wishes Span (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi. In making this reversion, were you aware that there is not always a difference between Oxford spelling and US English? In the case of an academic article on a decidedly British subject, there is little to choose between -ise and -ize spellings. However, the term 'fictionalised' may be problematic when a reviewer says the subject book is "Based on historical and literary research". Since there is very little historical data on Marlowe, I think the word "imaginative" is a better one, and one which also meets the MOS:COMMONALITY principle. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ÓCorcráin (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I have not edited this page since 2011. Span (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Your Vandalism of my Talk Page

You "blanked" my talk page of previous comments and replaced the existing content with your own. That is VANDALISM. Do not do it again. You are free to leave content, but you ARE NOT free to delete other people's (and my own)content from my talk page and replace it with your own. If you do this EVER again, I will make a formal complaint. Your edits of my talk page go beyond leaving a "warning" or (as you should have) engaging me in discussion, they pass the line of VANDALISM. Do not do it again.

Also, pay attention, and don't be so wrapped up in your own hubris: There is already a section on my Talk Page that discusses "Trivia", and that is the appropriate location for your diatribe, which due to its complete inappropriateness, I have not read. Pleas try again. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism. Replied on your talk page. Span (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Navboxes on author pages

Since you are the leading registered editor in terms of edits at Nikolai Gogol in the past year, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Edits

Hello, one of the information team has identified you as the person who deleted most of the recent edits I made. My original message to them is below. Can you please respond with an explanation. I recently added several external links to your entries on “Cynicism” (contemporary and philosophy), “Tramp”, “Hobo” and “Asceticism”. All my edits were taken down by someone within Wikipedia after I received a message to say that multiple changes indicates spamming! I have published an academic text on Cynicism that has been on Wikipedia’s “Cynicism (philosophy)” entry for about 8 years now: Ian Cutler, (2005), Cynicism from Diogenes to Dilbert. McFarland & Co. ISBN 0-7864-2093-6, and is still there.

All my new edits, under the username ‘nicengelhart’ were deleted from the sites. The reason for the updating is simply that I have not got around to updating the Wikipedia pages for some years and have a lot of new, and very relevant, information to add including philosophy journal articles on the subjects. The website I developed, ‘Cynical Reflections’ and an online book I’m writing ‘A Philosophy of Tramping’ < http://www.cynicalreflections.net/ > has a lot of information that I’m sure researchers interested in those subjects would find of useful. Furthermore, I receive no professional or financial benefits from this work, I’m retired! If it is so difficult and contentious to add information to Wikipedia, what is the point of it? Please can you reinstate the edits I made, or advise me how I can add them myself without them being zapped Nicengelhart (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I understand that your work may well be a sound and useful academic text. The removal of your links and books is not intended a personal slight. As Silk Tork explains, links repeatedly added to articles can be seen as promotional. Blogs are taken as unreliable sources because the as user-edited. Links and books written by the editor themselves can be a conflict of interest, which is discouraged. If you wish to explore this further please visit the external links, COI, reliable sources or spam noticeboards. I hope this helps. Thanks. Span (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you very much, Spanglej! I appreciate it! Best, Jpcohen (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Civil?

I'm nearly speechless. You dare to lecture me on civility after you've behaved in a completely uncivil manner by reverting disputed content that is currently in discussion for consensus on the article talk page? I don't care how much you don't like me or how pissed off you are at me, you are en experienced editor who should know better than to revert content I have promised to no longer revert while seeking consensus is blatantly hostile and completely uncivil. I can't think of any other good reason why you have circumvented the process of discussion and consensus than to intentionally disrupt to make a point. Look here [1] for more on why what you did is just not acceptable. At the very least your action is poking; at the worst it is disruptive, pointy, and tendentious editing. Regrettably, you've put me in a place where I now have to report your actions. This message is also going on the article talk page. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I left this message on my talk page a couple of days ago.

Message for Span: you are making assumptions about the external links I left, by parroting guidelines that mention self-promotion and a conflict of interest without checking out if this is the case. What evidence do you have that this is the case? I have read your guidelines, which refers in most cases to using common sense. If you are taking on the role of policing other people's activity, then have the courtesy of discussing individual links with me before simply deleting all of my edits. And who is policing your activity? The Philosophy of Tramping section on my blog is primarily a showcase of work by published tramp writers (currently Victorian tramp writers), whose work has sadly been overlooked. It is not about MY Ideas, and is certainly far more thoroughly researched than the pages on this subject in Wikipedia, which appears very superficial on the subject indeed. In any case, a lot of published work (and I say this as a published writer) can be less accurate and verifiable than writing that appears in blogs and websites (which in any case are frequently linked to on Wikipedia, hence the reason for making the links I did). If Wikipedia sets out to embrace the digital age in which we live, then it needs to review it's attitude to other digital sources of information; otherwise it is in danger of going the same way as the current publishing industry—into obscurity. I would like this discussion monitored by an independent third party, as I note from your talk page that I am not the first person that you have vexed in this way.

In any case, this experience of engaging with Wikipedia has just convinced me that I am wasting my time on something frivolous that is taking me away from more serious concerns, so I will leave it at that. Nicengelhart (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So you ask for third-party input immediately before you declare that you don't care either way? I'm not impressed. That said, I agree with Spanglej that those external links are not appropriate; the issue is not that it's a digital source but that it's a blog without editorial oversight, and that it's your own blog that you repeatedly linked to. If it's so thoroughly researched, how about improving the Wikipedia articles by adding your sources instead? Huon (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Advice sought on quality of poet pages as well as notability

Hi Spanglej. You've been helpful to me in the past and I'm unable to post this in the Teahouse (cannot hit the "submit" button on the dialogue box there.) I'm looking for guidance.I did an extensive update on Jane Hirshfield's page, including correct citations to all her publications as well as to literary criticism which discusses her work. Now I see someone has marked her page as "start" quality. I disagree. I'm also wondering how to go about establishing notability. Hirshfield is one of the world's most famous and esteemed living poets, yet there remains a question as to her notability?

I've also updated another poet/editor's page (Sarah Gorham) and am a little surprised to see her notability questioned. She's a very well know poet and essayist, also runs an awardwinning American literary publishing house. Can you help?

Lavenderly (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Lavenderly

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sarah Gorham may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Revert at Florence Hoath

Why? See here - A mistake? I am removing a malplaces { in the line: "Florence Angela L. Hoath[1] (born 12 July 1984 in London) is a British actress{ best known for her 2005 appearances as Nancy in Doctor Who.", and at the same time removing some unused | Christian75 (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Awards section

"Awards belong in main article body." According to what MOS? I went to WP:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and WP:Manual of Style/Biographies, nothing there. I do know that on WP:Manual of Style/Television and WP:Manual of Style/Film awards go just above DVD releases (which is last) -- which makes sense that accolades/reception come after almost everything else. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Joxe Azurmendi

Hello Spanglej, I´m Ketxus.

I don`t understand what do you mean with "reliable and independent source". The best sources I have found are: Aizpuru, A. (coord.) 2012: Euskal Herriko pentsamenduaren gida, Bilbo, UEU. ISBN 978-84-8438-435-9 and Hegats. Literatur aldizkaria (45)(issue on Joxe Azurmendi). ISSN 1130-2445; They are not "self-published sources". I know that there are no sources in English, but other sources (in Basque) exist and are independent. You can see another indepent source in "External links", for example: the website on basque literature http://zubitegia.armiarma.com/?i=19. I Hope it's enough. I beg you to consider

.

Thank you very much (Ketxus (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC))

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ozymandias versions

Please participate to Ozymandias versions talk before reverting desert.--Gciriani (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello and bethink oneself

Thank you for your recent input and welcome to you also to Wikipedia. It must be noted that one claim in on book does not mean it is fact. So for example if we go back the years in history and I am one of the first to edit the article George Washington in wikipedia and the first to claim (with help of one book or article as a source) that Washington was actually half-Native American or an atheist. So then naturally he can simply be categorized him as atheist or a person with Native American ancestry? Is it so unencyclopedicly simple!?

Observe kindly

WP:CRYSTAL -Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation.

WP:OR -The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.

WP:V - means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science.

WP:FRINGE -A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article

WP:NOTOPINION -Opinion pieces, although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes".

WP:YESPOV -Avoid stating opinions as facts

WP:WEIGHT -Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

WP:RS: Can be established in this article and is verifiable WP:V

WP:DIVERSE: Sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.

WP:SYN :Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

WP:SYNTHESIS: If Jones did not consult the original sources, this would be contrary to the practice recommended in the Harvard Writing with Sources manual, which requires citation of the source actually consulted.

WP:LC: The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable, The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia, Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.

No disrespect, but these are the values according to which I have edited. Thank you. Pgarret (talk) 21:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

One given source is quite adequate under these guidelines- Yes you can write anything and source it quite liberally, but when it comes to claiming something as fact and marking it as someone's convictions be it marxist or atheist or even hindu the rules are as follows:

To use multiple sources and try to cite scholarly consensus when available

WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

WP:CHERRY fact picking. Instead of finding a balanced set of information about the subject, a coatrack goes out of its way to find facts that support a particular bias. An appropriate response to a coatrack article is to be bold and trim off excessive biased content

WP:SCICON The existence of a consensus within an academic community may be indicated, for example, by independent secondary or tertiary sources that come to the same conclusion. The statement that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material.

WP:NOTRELIABLE - Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional

Any analysis or interpretation of the quoted material, however, should rely on a secondary source (See: WP:No original research)

THE ABOVE MENTIONED HAS NOT BEEN NOTED OR RESPECTED IN THE ARTICLES I HAVE RECENTLY EDITED. Wild speculation and claims are not facts and should be presented as only as personal claims by the respective author until a scholarly and multiple sourced text is made available. Balanced, certified and strongly unequivocal research is not synonymous with an loose opinion here and there. Pgarret (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

ps

I apologise if I seemed a bit harsh in my assertive directness but I have been deeply disturbed by the low level I have observed when odds and ends have been freely presented as certainties.

WP:ASSERT When a statement is a fact (a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute) it should be asserted without prefixing it with "(Source) says that ...", and when a statement is an opinion (a matter which is subject to dispute) it should be attributed to the source that offered the opinion using inline-text attribution.

WP:BALANCE Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.

WP:YESPOV Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.

WP:CAT Categories regarding religious beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through action. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate.

Thank you and hope to make Wikipedia a better place!

Pgarret (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The Vagenda

You removed the orphan tag - however an orphan is defined as "an article with no links from other pages in the main article namespace". The above article is not linked TO from any mainspace page. The tag is still valid. See Wikipedia:Orphan.-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 18:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your help with the Richard Armitage article. KiplingKat can be remarkably difficult to deal with when there's a disagreement; that's why there are so few regular contributors to the article (you saw the response to your comment about our contributions.) I usually find WP:OWN easy to throw around and very hard to prove, but it her case, I'm sure you can see it does apply. Your calming third voice was very much appreciated; without it, she'd have warred and warred to get that quote in without any consideration that he was misquoted or some other explanation for the contradiction we talked about. And you can see, she barged ahead anyway, claiming consensus where there was none (I actually preferred the two age version, which would have prevented later attempts to add one age or the other.) Once she calms down, I may try to make that change, but I'm a bit weary of it all now. Anyway, another thank you for your help, especially your final comments. --Drmargi (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I see Kat has not edited any other pages, under that ID at least. Perhaps there is little experience of how WP works and little au-fait-ness with collaborative editing. Richard's number one fan. These are huge aspects of the WP model - learning as we go, negotiating, learning how to work respectfully with an entirely inclusive global constituency: those who have edited for ten years, and those who made their first edit today; those with little English and native speakers. Sometimes I think WP was dreamed up by a mad, drunk god asleep under a bush; other times I think it's a gloriously noble attempt at improving international relations. Lord knows, but thank you for all your contributions to the encyclopaedia. Span (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty fair assessment. I gather she has a bit of a reputation within the RA fan community, something I give a very wide berth, and my experience with her has always been that she becomes confrontational whenever an edit is challenged. What troubles me is her lack of understanding of, or willingness to embrace, some of the basic concepts of wiki editing. Consensus to her is about people agreeing with her; I was actually surprised she proposed the mention of both ages, which was at least a step in the right direction. Sadly, she's headed for DR with it all now, although I don't expect that to yield much of a result. Regardless, the text is acceptable if not optimal now, and I'm done. --Drmargi (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Richard Armitage (actor). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Trivia

See my Talk. =//= Johnny Squeaky 02:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Question concerning the deletion of new commentary on Jesse Owens and Eulace Peacock

It's unfortunate that the new commentary on the rivalry between Jesse Owens and Eulace Peacock was deleted from Owens' article on the assumption that the information was unsourced and possibly unreliable. The discussion provided excellent insight into Owens' career during his heyday, and I can assure you that the information contained in the commentary was truthful.

I suggest that you click over to Peacock's article on Wikipedia and peruse his external links. You will also see my headstone image in the article.

Personally, I never heard of Eulace Peacock and his track and field competition with Jesse Owens until I did research work on celebrities in Kensico Cemetery a couple of years ago. I came across Peacock's name in Kensico's literature, and that's when I found out about his connection to Owens in the 1936 Olympic Games.

Jesse Owens is a very lucky man. If Peacock had not sustained a hamstring injury in the spring of 1936, Owens might not have taken home the four gold medals. The inscription on Peacock's grave marker says, "World's Fastest Human." That means that he was faster than Owens.

If you like, you can re-insert the commentary with your own sources. I think that people should know that Eulace Peacock was a serious threat to Jesse Owens' quest for stardum at Berlin in 1936. He was the victim of a raw deal and was unfairly forgotten.

Anthony22 (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Alice Walker

Thanks for the heads up and the advice. Im doing my best to work properly on this page, so I hope everything works out.DaltonCastle (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Scribd seems legit now, paid subscriptions, etc.

Hello! I left the Scribd links unchanged for three reasons: 1) when I linked, I could see just a sample of the text of the book, indicating I had to pay to see more; 2) payment implied to me that it had arrangements with the publishers; and 3) current news articles show it making deals with major publishing houses, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/business/media/harpercollins-pursues-e-book-subscription-service-with-scribd.html?_r=0 . I see by the Wikipedia article that Scribd has been rather controversial, but the cases brought in 2009 were all settled or dropped, per that same article. I am not a subscriber to Scribd, thus have not more personal experience than those links I made in the summer. It seems extreme now to reject it flat out, taking just one side of the controversy and not looking at more recent actions. I suspect a service like Scribd might change its catalog to fit the demand of its subscribers, so that might be the more important issue. Does that alter your view at all? I will watch your page for your reply. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message. Scribd have had a dodgy reputation for pirating but I'm not sure about this Cadfael example. Law suits may have been dropped because it was too expensive to pursue or there were out of court settlements etc. And the money they are charging does not necessarily go to Pargeter. The Scribd link says that it is published by Pavel Tchoudnovskiy (?) under a 'non-commercial' copyright (?). I could see very little info on the page to substantiate things one way or the other. I'll investigate further to see if I can dig out more info on its legit'ness. I'd leave it off the WP page for now until we can get clear on things. Would you agree? Best wishes Span (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

These articles [2] [3] are a bit dated but they describe Scribd as a 'peer to peer' file sharing site, user-uploaded, authorisation unneeded. "While Scribd does not police the vast number of files on its site, it does take down any copyright-infringing material that is reported to it". Scribd say "Scribd has more than 40 million free books and documents contributed by users, and nearly doubles in size every year". The $8.99 is a flat rate for general open access to certain popular texts. Looking at other texts like Neverwhere, the publisher company is given (Harpercollins) and a specific 'list price' is given. See also LW&W, Enduring Love, BofC. Contrast our link with Pargeter's book The Brothers of Gwynedd. All this suggests to me that the Cadfael text is stolen. Span (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Spanglej, your search of particular titles on Scribd does show an existing situation that is not clearly legitimate. At this moment, only novels by Ellis Peters are of concern. I will test the links in other Cadfael Wikipedia articles to see if they still connect to what I saw in the summer and show a logical copyright holder. If not, I will delete them. Funny, the only reason I looked for these e-books was from someone else inserting a statement about e-books in one of the general articles (Cadfael or Cadfael Chronicles). Another editor found that inappropriate, belonging to each novel. So I looked, being curious. I did learn from Fantastic Fiction or in one case Goodreads, that there are Kindle versions for some but not all of the novels, complete with ISBn or ASIN (what is that?) numbers assigned, and a publisher given. So the extent of legitimate downloading will be limited to these traceable Kindle versions. Such a time of upset in the publishing world! Publishers do not make deals so that libraries in the US at least, can share books as downloads, not all the books the library might have on the shelf, or as an audiobook. The void is filled by this method that ignores copyrights, and not worth mentioning novel by novel on Wikipedia. The HarperCollins contract provides another outlet to sell its books, separate from this muddied mess that is the rest of Scribd. Thanks for doing that extra work, and figuring out what it means. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the phrase that appears on a Scribd page, where I once found those few Cadfael novels -- This content was removed at the request of Meulenhoff Boekerij. Sometimes, the page for A Rare Benedictine appears, loaded as you noted, by someone unlikely to hold the copyright for that book of short stories. --Prairieplant (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the publishing world is changing very fast and many will resort to stealing work where they can. scribd prefix:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard If you put this red link into the search function you'll see some recent discussions about Scribd as a source. There is some talk of blacklisting the whole site as its users are anonymous and unregulated. It seems they are similar to Youtube or Pirate Bay in that they are all full of pirated material but too large and ubiquitous for individuals or most companies to try and hold back the tide. Some companies have decided to work with them instead (like HarperCollins). By the way, I hadn't realised it was yourself that had added the Scribd link. The edits and comments contained nothing personal to you. We learn as we go. Also, as I understand it, Good Reads is user-edited as so not held as reliable sources. Best wishes Span (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been a good learning experience. I made a judgment based on not enough information. By checking the link just six months later, to find the books are gone, I learned a direct lesson. By reading up on Scribd, I have a much better idea of what it is about. Plus the Wikipedia article on Scribd needs monitoring! Much "puffery" gets inserted, then removed, then inserted again. Puffery means favorable claims about Scribd that have no source at all.

Changing subject a bit -- That is more offensive than foreign titles for Agatha Christie books, with no source and never ISBn or other identifier like publisher -- something that is never challenged, or at least, I have not seen it challenged. People could be making up books titles for translations never made or published. You say Goodreads is not a good source, but it seems better to me to get the book title along with ISBn and in some cases the name of the translator, than simply to assert that the book has such and such title in French, Spanish, Portuguese, and so on. WorldCat has some of the foreign titles on its shelves around the world, but never as many as are listed on Goodreads edition list. Extent of translations seems important about a novel and its publication history, to me. So it is hard for me to see Goodreads editions list as a close cousin to Scribd. Still learning. I get the basic concept of reliable source, but some of its fine points are hard to absorb. --Prairieplant (talk) 20:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Scribd is getting away with murder (and theft). It's worth reporting pirated works to Scribd so they remove them. I have done so with the Pargeter. I think Goodreads is fine for research but doesn't fly as a link or a source. Anyone can add a review or cataloguing detail, which makes it weak. It is a very different animal to Scribd. I just mentioned GR in passing. I find with reliable sources, that its best to go for the strongest source you can get and work backwards from there. If a newspaper article is all I can find, after lots of looking, then I'll use that, but I tend to use weak sources as a last resort. I take the approach that hopefully someone will rock up and want to bring the WP article to GA or FA and for this weak sources are useless. You can get free subscriptions to Jstor, Highbeam, Credo and Questia research engines through Wikipedia - super-useful for tracking solid sources. Span (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Pop

Posted guidelines were helpful but suggest a pop culture page spin off rather than simple deletion. The note is of value to literary scholars of the Victorian period as an instance of contemporary reception of the author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSearsmith (talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for review of new draft of Horrible Histories TV series article

Hello! I'm a new(ish) editor who's most recently undertaken to do some rescue work on the Horrible Histories TV series page. Your name was given me by User:Cocolacoste as an editor interested in that article, and also generally as a particularly experienced and helpful one. :)

With that in mind, may I ask if you could please take a few moments to review the new article draft I've prepared, prior to my placing it in the mainspace? It's in my sandbox. I've already received some good feedback from User:Cocolacoste and others, but want to make very sure I've addressed the concerns listed at the top and am otherwise conforming to Wiki-style, esp. as regards sourcing/references. As both a writer and a fan of the show, I'm basically just really anxious to see it get the good article -- and, possibly, Good Article status -- it deserves. Thank you much, Shoebox2 talk 23:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review and especially for your encouragement, it's appreciated more than I can say. I'm so pleased that you think the article has potential as a GA, and will review the requirements as soon as I can. I'm most anxious to see the article in the mainspace repaired, to begin with, so will have to gauge how far I am from GA status before making a definitive decision about going for it. I do get what you're saying re: the benefits of being able to work on it all in one piece, though.

Meanwhile, I've undertaken a preliminary rewriting attempt to get rid of most of the direct quotes as suggested, and was rather pleasantly surprised with how much better the whole thing sounded. I absolutely understand what you're saying as regards the first few sections especially sounding like a cast/crew interview, and have begun work to eliminate that tone as well. The difficulty I'm finding there is that besides the interviews, there are comparatively few secondary sources that directly reference the details of either the show's conception or production, and in an effort to avoid over-reliance on those -- and on producer Norris -- I tried to compensate by referencing as many different cast and crewmembers as I could.

User:Coin945 has been very eager to help (although at my request has confined her efforts to my sandbox's talkpage for now), and has in fact found some genuinely valuable sources. To that end I've also asked her to assist with sourcing images, and the results are currently in the article. Otherwise, she seems to be especially interested in expanding the section on the show's interactive content and other marketing -- while I'm not at all sure they're notable enough, except in terms of awards won, and in fact am thinking of removing the marketing pieces from the awards table in favour of a quick summary in the appropriate section. A third-party opinion on that subject might be helpful. :)

Thank you again for your help, and would welcome any further comment. I'll definitely check back in as needed.Shoebox2 talk 18:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Get the draft as you wish it and up on mainspace first, for sure, before thinking about GA. The GA process might prove to be a distraction, rather than a boon to you. See how you go. Sometimes the faddle of the whole thing puts people off. I agree with Coco and tend not to edit other people's sandboxes as they are private space. As I mentioned, I am not currently au fait with the sources but I'm sure you are doing well with finding the best you can. I saw the added images and wonder about their fair use status. Not sure they'd fly for a GA, but I'm not much up on the detail of image/copyright policy. Generally editors seem to whack up images and hope for the best till someone else comes and takes them down. I would say, in terms of content, less is more. Coin seems to be the strong impression that more is more. You have managed to excise the article's 'fan hopping up and down with excitement' tone, and long may it last. Any content that sounds like it was written by HH fanzine bloggers is suspect in my book. You seem like a great asset to the WP content-adding community. I really hope the place and the editing gives you satisfaction and you manage to stay out of the wrangling rings. You write well and we need skilled people who can write well. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Ben-Hur

Howdy! The syntax is fine -- I mean, that statement seems to come out of the blue there. There's no in-depth discussion of any of the adaptations, and then a bizarre note about one of them, seemingly at random. The purported homoerotic subtext is a minor section on the Ben-Hur movie main page; a mention of it in the middle of that list just sort of seemed shoe-horned in. No? Korossyl (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is interesting that Vidal found in the story a homoerotic subtext. The mention in the book's article comes under 'adaptations' which is the only place it could go. I am happy to develop the section. Span (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

thanking

On second thougths, I guess what made me react the way I did was, apart from the stuff I said, that I have a different idea about courtesy in a way. If people thank you mainly as a, well, a teaser for criticism, no thank you. It's a wiki, so, as far as I am concerned. It is everybody's article, so going ahead as you please, with a good reason given in the comment line, to me feels much better than any shape and size of "teasered thanks". So all's well now, I guess. --Jackentasche (talk) 15:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The thanks were sincerely meant. Happy editing. Span (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Same :) --Jackentasche (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Sun Tzu

Thanks for your report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. The problem seems to have been caused by vandalism on test Wikipedia, which had already been reverted, but was still showing up on the English Wikipedia article because the corrupted version was still in the Wikimedia server's cached version of the article. I have cleared the cache, and it's now OK. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Lovely. Thanks Span (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Best wishes

Happy New Year!

It was a pleasure meeting you, Span. All the very best for 2014. --Coco Lacoste (talk) 08:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Coco. All best wishes for your 2014. Span (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to say thank you for the comments.DaltonCastle (talk) 18:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC