User talk:Anna Roy/Archive 3

Removal of image at Depression (mood)

Hi. You cite WP:IUP for your removal of the image at Depression (mood). Can you please tell me which element of that policy we were breaching there? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For now, I've restored the image but please comment at Talk:Depression_(mood)#The_photo if you think it should be removed or replaced by a more appropriate one. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

I take it you are following my edits, to link to portraits, and reversing them. Do you have a specific reason or agenda I should be aware of?--Hughlay1407 12:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughlay1407 (talk • contribs)

As I mentioned in the edit summaries, the links appear to be WP:SPAM, promoting the work of an individual artist. Articles are not for personal advertising. See WP:EL and WP:SPAMLINK. It appears that you may have a conflict of interest. I have no personal agenda here other than clearing up spam. Span (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Tagging of Crowdsourcing creative work

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Crowdsourcing creative work. I do not think that Crowdsourcing creative work fits any of the speedy deletion criteriabecause it is not an article about an entity or product and therefore does not meet the criteria G11 or A7, and none of the other criteria apply. Please use PROD or take the article to AFD for consideration. I request that you consider not re-tagging Crowdsourcing creative work for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of American Roman Catholics at Perry Como

your edit (rv unsourced cat)

Not sure how many more sources regarding this there should be:

In 1958, the Comos celebrated their silver wedding anniversary with a family trip to Italy. On the itinerary was an audience with Pope Pius XII.Como Received By Pope Pius Upon returning home, Como was both puzzled and upset that photos from the visit made the newspapers throughout the world. A thorough check of both the Como and National Broadcasting Company (NBC) publicity offices found that neither was responsible for the release of the photos to the media; it was done by the Vatican's press department. When Perry and Roselle became Knight Commander and Lady Commander of the Equestrian Order of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre in 1952, it was a news item only after Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, who had been honored at the same ceremony, made mention of it some time later. Como Wears White Hat Perry Como: A Biography and Complete Career Record Perry Como, An Early Biography-RCA Records-Perry Como at Home Far From Tee

His funeral Mass took place at St. Edward's Catholic Church in Palm Beach, Florida;Mourners remember 'nice guy' Perry Como at singer's funeral

We hope (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I was asked for an outside opinion and have given one at the article talk page. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. See Talk:Perry Como for reply. Span (talk)

Scorsese

What's so strong about them? A sub-section of a newspaper that isn't even part of the real newspaper, and a couples of books. All with no exception written/produced after Wikipedia had started writing that his middle names were Marcantonio Luciano (after 2007, that is). A professional genealogist is a more reliable source than any of that, and if the California Divorce Records list him as Martin C. Scorsese, that settles it. Legal documents are more reliable (and that includes his political contributions). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Who are you?

Hello. Who are you, and when are we to have met or communicated in the past? George Dance (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to remove links to poems from articles I've written, please find other links to the same poems and substitute them. George Dance (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I posted a reply on my own talk page. George Dance (talk) 04:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

James Earl Jones

It is working for me and just passed at WP:FS so it is working for a lot of other people. I will create an audio only version that people can listen to if they can not view the video.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the audio only file work for you?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Anna Akhmatova

Hello, Those expand tags were on the talk page and I moved them to the article page as that is where they usually appear. I have not tried to look at the German and Romanian articles but assume that whoever added those tags originally assumed a featured article would contain material which would enhance the English article. The same is probably true of the Russian article which has not been given featured status. Which parts to translate and whether to look for supporting citations for any of the statements would have to be decided by the translator, who would not be required to translate text just because it was there. If I had selected a source article for expansion it might not have been one of those. Best wishes.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Postmodern authors

Sure Like I said elsewhere, I was just getting authors out of Category:Postmodern literature and categorizing more of them based on List of postmodern writers. If the categories are inappropriate, then I fully support someone removing them, but reverting back to when they were categorized in Category:Postmodern literature and Category:Postmodernists gets us nowhere (e.g.) I would be happy to help you with this, but I'm simply too ignorant about literature to determine if (e.g.) Joseph Heller is a postmodern author or not. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't see your comment elsewhere. I'm puzzled by what you say, as writers like Alice Walker and Roald Dahl were never listed as Category:Postmodern literature as far as I can see. Am I missing something? Span (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See here List_of_postmodern_writers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Mary Cunningham Agee

Spangelj, I have added dozens of verifiable references to Ms. Agee's article in response to the banner giving notice that this was needed. I have been the Director of Communication at the Nurturing Network for 20 years and feel response for saving this article from being the chopped up mess that it was a couple of weeks ago. I have access to dozens of well-sourced references, which, as you can see, I added today. It isn't clear to me what finding consensus means in Wikipedia or how you go about reaching it. Mrs. Agee is an historical figure among women activists and her article needs reflect that. The material that I have worked on for the past week and published today is factual and well sourced. What aspect of it isn't acceptable to you? How do we proceed from here? Getting this right is a high priority. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience. Omnibus170 (talk) 04:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts to identify “trouble spots” that you feel do not reflect a NPOV in this article. If you will point out sections that you feel conflict with Wiki policy or need a reference, I would happy to work on them further and propose an improvement that we can both accept. My goal is twofold: Removal of “warning” banners as soon as possible and making sure that the factual, historic element of Cunningham's early advocacy for women is not overlooked. I know Cunningham Agee the person. I know the facts. I have or can get references. You know how Wiki works – and you can balance any tendency I could have that may not be neutral. That makes us a good team. What is really on my mind today is the importance of not removing core elements of this article because it includes accomplishments and awards … and in so doing fail to tell the story of this historic person. There is a reason for the awards and Board service – and the reason is an appreciation people have for how Cunningham took the experience of Bendix – her own hurt – and the hurt of losing a child - and turned it into an advantage for other women who are hurting. That is the story we must tell from a NPOV. The interesting twist on Cunningham’s life-long commitment to empowering women is that she didn’t go the route of advocating for abortion rights; she went the route of seeking a common ground on the abortion issue and placing high priority on the provision of practical resources for women in crisis. Very few leading feminists of the day made that choice. As a Roman Catholic who was strongly influenced by a Monsignor who befriended her family when she was very young, Cunningham’s faith drew her in this direction. That is why the connection with Monsignor “Father Bill” Nolan is important in her story. She melded the painful experience of Bendix and losing her first child to a miscarriage with her extensive training in strategic planning to found an international charity. We simply can’t leave corporate strategic planner out of her lead story line. It belongs there as it is central to her professional life. Is there any of this material in the new opening section that you are not comfortable with? Omnibus170 (talk) 00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have added back some material (the middle paragraph) ofyour work in the Career section that I feel is essential. It is factual and well documented. I corrected some typos in the Nurturing Network section. I feel strongly that we must communicate how the experience of Bendix made Mary a public and historic figure in the context of gaining equality for women in the workplace. As background, here is a little history that may help you to see that her business experience is pivotal in the feminist movement in this country. She didn’t plan it that way; but she became a pioneer. Her story isn’t important because the media went bananas and the country was curious; it is important because it was a pivotal event in the feminist movement. When her blonde head hit the glass ceiling, all hell broke loss and women who were earning half as much as men for the same job all cheered. It created a country wide "wake up call" that the good old boy network was a thing of the past - that female colleagues would be treated respectfully and professionaly. Silly today, I know. But this was how it was in the 80's. We had to learn. Cunningham wrote about the experience, landed on her feet after being much sought after by other Fortune 100 companies. She had a successful career with Seagram developing their world wide strategy. She left all of that to found a successful international charity that has been a resource for women for 25 years. This is what we need to capture in words that conform to Wiki guidelines. I look forward to having your help in accomplishing this. It might be worth mentioning that today the Bendix story would almost seem quaint – a woman has frequent access to her boss and 2-3 years later they get married. No big deal. The 80’s was an entirely different ballgame. That is the reason that Gloria Steinem – a leading feminist – came to Cunningham’s defense. And why that documented fact is important to include. It is about feminism and who the early pioneers were. This is core material in the story. Rather than diminish the lead paragraph in Agee’s article, I am proposing that we expand it a little and follow the model of Dr. James Dobson – a colleague of Mary’s who is well known, is a teacher, writer and someone who founded a charity. I would encourage you to read the Dobson intro and see the parallels between Jim’s lead and the lead I am proposing today. Since there are no criticisms of the Dobson lead, I thought it would be a good model. Please feel free to share your thoughts … thanks. Omnibus170 (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It is factually inaccurate to remove all of Agee's teaching - speaking, writing, articles etc. from her article, as this element of her professional life over that past twenty five years is central to her story. Because it responds to one of the core mission elements of the Nurturing Network (education), I have included some key information in that section. One short paragraph re: key addresses is more about honors (i.e. Commonweath Club and others)than TNN's mission, so I included it in the Honors section. (The last 7 US Presidents have addressed the Commonweath Club. It was a high honor for young professional woman.) The Pope does not invite just anyone to give two address to Forums in Rome. These are important to include. Same with the Supreme Court. Does that seem like a good distinction to you between honors and teaching and motivational speaking that is related to TNN? I continue to remove adjectives that are the least bit superlative. Do you have a comfort level now with both NPOV and reading like a story not a resume? If you do, please feel free to remove the warning banners. If you don't, please let me know where you see a shortcoming and I will work on it. Omnibus170 (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your advice and have worked diligently to add references to this article that Wikipedia has designated as sub-standard for this reason. Could I ask you to please look at this article again and evaluate my success? Have I accomplished what is required? Does it honor NPOV standards while still telling the story of an historic figure in the women's movement? I have read dozens of other articles and Wikipedia guidelines and have tried diligently to compensate for any tendency toward COI. It is my longstanding professional relationship with Ms. Agee gives me access to the references that are necessary for a well documented article. I have added references by a factor of 6 or 7, added page numbers where I have them, removed every adjective that could remotely present a "glowing" report - trying in every way possible to meet Wikipedia standards for encyclopedic tone. (One exception might be mentioning 3 other women among the 60 starting with Betsy Ross in the Cullen-DuPont Anthology. I included that mention mostly for the benefit of other editors who may have missed the 80's and not realize Agee's prominence as an advocate for women. The anthology is an important reference but the names of the other women could be deleted if you feel it isn’t appropriate.) Will you please take an interest in this article and promptly evaluate if it now meets standards so both banners can be removed? This article reflects only a small percentage of the material in Ms. Agee's Curriculum Vitae and, I believe, now reads like a NPOV story of an historic person in the woman's movement. I cannot believe that adding more articles (which I could do) would increase credibility. It is already factual, credible and well documented. I am hoping that you agree and can remove the warnings promptly. If I still need help understanding NPOV or encyclopedic tone, please help with that. Thanks so much. Omnibus170 (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanglej, I appreciate your advice and, in particular, your willingness to work on the Mary Cunningham Agee article so that it does meet objectivity standards. I honestly don't know what isn't acceptable and which accomplishments anyone would question. I don't know how to put a COI tag on my talk page nor do I fully understand how that will help to rid the article of "resume" tendency. My goal is to participate (with someone or someones) who definitely have a neutral point of view and substantial Wikipedia experience to order to convey Mrs. Agee's accomplishments appropriately. Yes, I fully understand that someone can present information that casts Mrs. Agee is a negative light. If / when that happens, we can and will examine their objectivity / neutrality and the quality of their sources. I understand. My immediate goal is get someone's help in presenting the material that I currently have a knowledge of and know to be accurate in an acceptable encyclopedic style and then have someone other than me remove the warning banner. And then on with the process ... however that unfolds. Really appreciate your interest and help. Omnibus170 (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Devito

next time b4 u think i made all the edits on Danny Devito, look at my contributions, then check on the contributions the people made b4 me. All i did was give the right birthday in the infobox. Sorry u got confused. Dbunkley6 (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, it was the edits of the IP before you I was reverting. Sorry. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Lewis

For your information i reverted a bold edit made by AMacR and have already joined the discussion on the talk page in regards to C. S. Lewis. How does a bold edit by AMacR that has no consensus have more weight than me applying WP:BRD? If there is a disagreement with something in an article it is customary to revert to what was there before the issue was raised until the issue is sorted. Mabuska ^(talk) 15:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

No problems. Stating he's British is the most accurate term as he is a British national and according to the manual of style for biographies we shouldn't mention ethnciity or country of birth in the lede unless its relevant to the article. His ethnicity was never a major issue in his life going by the article so it can be deemed as not relevant. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Tim Robbins

Stop reverting my edits to the tim robbins page or you need to get blocked. Height informations are added by the most celebrities. 188.23.211.222 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Please assume the good faith of other editors. I did not revert your edit, I added a reference from a newspaper to validate your edit. Span (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Valentino

You're welcome. Pinkadelica^♣ 23:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ruskin

Hi. I am wondering why the so many of the links I have made to external sites from the Ruskin page have been removed? I note that some have simply been moved, but other have be REmoved altogether. I am attempting to improve the Ruskin entry in conjunction with other Ruskin scholars. The current entry is inadequate on several levels, and I spent some time trying to improve a few sections, to find that a lot of it is now missing.

I am new to Wikipedia editing, and I appreciate that the piecemeal approach means that the page was looking temporarily rather messy. I do not want to enter into a situation where we undo each others revisions, so I would really appreciate it if we could discuss this further.

With best wishes, OrelPosrednik77. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrelPosrednik77 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful reply. It is useful to know the protocol. I shall look at he links again, because I think some of them are less useful than others. For example, the Baldwin Library has been retained, but links to Brantwood, Ruskin's home open to the public, and the Guild of St George, have been deleted. I am also puzzled by some other editing. The section entitled 'Biographies' was in place prior to my joining the Wiki community. It has now been moved to further reading. In the move, my explanatory notes have been deleted (pointing out, for example, that Professor Rosenberg's book is really a biography of Ruskin's thought) and Robert Hewison's OUP title has been deleted altogether. What is the explanation for this? And why does the further reading not say that these titles are biographies, rather than some other genre of study? I note, too, that some of the hyperlinks have been removed. So, for example, we can still go straight to the wikipedia page on environmentalism, but not sustainability and craft. As a visually-impaired editor and user of Wikipedia, I find the use of endnotes (references, sources) unehlpful when linking to external sites (but crucial for citation, of course). At present, the references are out of balance, with few of Ruskin's most notable scholars being referred to. I am not suggesting that all of the edits are unhelpful or puzzling, and it is both a comfort and a joy to know that someone is looking at this. I appreciate your time, and asistance. With best wishes, OrelPosrednik77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrelPosrednik77 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Okay, that helps quite a lot. I have made some edits in the meantime which will need to be changed in light of this. I am sure you are on to that. I think I am going to leave editing this for a while, so that I can read up on the protocol. I think it is a pity that we are limited in the number of external links given the number of Ruskin organisations and resources online. Although it is interesting to link to places named after Ruskin, Brantwood and the Guild are clearly more important than a library with one Ruskin book, or a college formed out of homage to him. Can I ask if my edit, listing Ruskin's biographies under the Bibliography, in a sub-section, is okay, or is this also a no-no? Many thanks. OP77. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrelPosrednik77 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments, yesterday and today, and for your help. In most cases where I have cited a source, the entire book addresses the subject at hand, but I shall have a look, and see if I can add appropriate page numbers. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrelPosrednik77 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! I really appreciate your advice, patience and encouragement. Hopefully we can gradually shape this entry into something worthy of both Ruskin and Wikipedia. With thanks (for the cake, too!) and best wishes, OrelPosrednik77

Apologies if our edits crossed over. Is what I have done ok?

Many thanks for your help and patience. I hope you don't mind, but I have changed your 'proponents of Ruskin' to 'Ruskin enthusiasts'. It is one thing to enjoy reading Ruskin, as those named certainly do, but another to imply that they advocate Ruskin in some way. It isn't necessarily untrue, but I wouldn't wish the case to be overstated. I do have citations, and will add these in the coming days. Many thanks for your guardianship, assistance and patience. OrelPosrednik77

It is a pity about the Facebook link, as the page is maintained by the Ruskin Library and Reseatch Centre at Lancaster University. OrelPosrednik77

Just to say the changes to Ruskin this morning are mine. I forgot to sign in, for which I apologise. All are minor edits/additions, and should cause you no difficulties. Hope you are well and thanks for your encouragement and support once more. OrelPosrednik77

A brownie for you!

Thanks for your edits to Mary Cunningham Agee. It looks like a better article now. SPhilbrickT 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Pretty flower!

Actually, I showed the sunflower to my little daughter, and that's exactly what she said! Thanks, appreciate the wiki-love. You rock, too! Christine (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

LGBT

OK sorry, i will amend these arts with sources (diaries of Iwaszkiewicz and Malinowski etc.) Mathiasrex (talk) 17:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Span (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Agee page is great

Spanglej, I am very pleased with the result our collaboration even though I didn't win on every point that I felt mattered. It wasn't easy at times. You led me through the process of learning what a quality article needs to read like with a lot of patience. Thanks for being a great teacher.Omnibus170 (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cecil Day Lewis

Changing the date back was a curious decision, if I may say so. It was not previously footnoted, I think, so the original date given had equally little probative value.

The Revd Frank Cecil Day-Lewis died on 29 July 1937.

My source is The Principal Probate Registry, Calendar of the Grants of Probate and Letters of Administration made in the Probate Registries of the High Court of Justice in England (London) (1937), p. 105.

Furthermore, his death was registered in the Southwell Registration District in the third quarter of 1937 - see General Register Office, England and Wales Civil Registration Indexes (London) (Third Quarter, 1937), names Lev-Lew, p. 28.

These are both public domain resources

By the way, his age at death was given as 60 - which implies a birthdate of 1876/1877.

I leave this to you to sort out. Cpsa (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Span (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Gentle reminder

You're right, but that doesn't make it appropriate to use rollback. Btw, since the editor seems quite persistent, you might like to leave them a note explaining our practices when it comes to nationality and citizenship in the lead before things deteriorate. All the best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Span (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification

Hi, Span Thank you for the indication. It is great to see that wikipedia has a real time poetry editor. Anyway, sorry for any inconveniences and keep up the great work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.200.62.123 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Best wishes Span (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback.

Hi Spanglej, Thank you for taking the time to inform me about the reasoning behind red links. I hadn't that they were unlinked on purpose. It was my impression that they were links to articles which had existed but at some point were deleted. Like you said, I have edited a significant amount of these red links recently. These mistakes will be promptly reverted back to their original format. Thanks again. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Best wishes Span (talk) 07:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Chicago Disney

HI this is DisneyChicago99, I know that Vincent Price was the master of horor. So please can you block Vincent Price or Semi-Protect him. Thanks, DisneyChicago99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisneyChicago99 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanglej did you ever saw the artical of George Lucas?, if so I saw his recent history and there were some VANDALISM sightings, do you think George Lucas needs a blocked. I mean he is kinda like spielberg and look his blocked, but not Lucas!. [PLEASE WRITE BACK] Thanks, DisneyChicago99 P.S. Please help me block Lucas! — Preceding unsigned comment added byDisneyChicago99 ([[User talk:DisneyChicago99|talk]contribs) 00:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello S. It looks like the persistent IP hopper from earlier this year has returned with this user nameDisneyChicago99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I notified the admin who has worked on this before at this thread User talk:Ponyo#Gregory Peck.27s Signature. I don't know what else there is to do at the moment but I wanted to let you know what is going on. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 21:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Bukowski Novel Portal

Just curious: why did you re-add the "Novels Portal"? Does it really belong here? The "See Also" section was for an entry that was deleted. So it doesn't make sense to maintain this section for a link to a Novels Portal. Wouldn't a Novels Portal be more appropriate as a link in an article for one of Bukowski's novels?Jpcohen (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's not so good to have a 'see also' section with nothing in it. I moved the portal down. Other novelists have lit portals such as D. H. Lawrence, Margaret Atwood and Philip K. Dick so it seems fine to keep it, to me. Span (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For calming me the hell down. I assumed no scandal section on the Rupert Murdoch page meant that some folks were doing some serious police action, so stormed in like a crazed viking to a war zone. Only to discover some very reasonable people having a tea party. And yes, I will have sugar with that. Sloggerbum (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Native/Indigenous descent

You wrote that my category was removed because I stated that the subject is visibly of Native/Indigenous descent. Based on the removal of visual cues as a proper reason, then all categories that include people of visible minority groups such as, People of Asian/African/Indian etc should be removed as well. This makes very little sense to remove a category due to the fact that it was based on a visual description. The vast majority of,say, people of African descent would therefore have no category based on your logic of removing my category of those of Native Latin/South American descent. Removing that/those categories because it was visual based discredits quite a lot of categories on Wikipedia. In a nutshell, your reason makes very little logical sense, and I do hope that you are not one of those who think Hispanic/Latino is an actual race of descent that one came from. Taking a look at Morgan Freeman's page, one sees the category 'African-American film actors', do you believe that Freeman presents his family history to prove he is African? Do you think the author of that Wiki page was given hard proof that Freeman is of African descent? Visual cues were used, and categories were made based on that because in such a case, visual cues are a logical way to judge ones race. Categories were made, and people are added to those very same categories based on visual cues. Your removal of those categories are without proper thought. Removing my category based on your reason, discredits many of the categories on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black309 (talk • contribs) 04:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your message about the "Native Mexican descent" category, I'd say that the user claiming that sourcing this kind of category based on a subject's looks is missing the whole point of WP:V, and you were correct to revert. As for the African American category being the user's example for including this category, I know a user who often challenges that particular category in articles forcing others to provide a source to support its inclusion despite the fact that the subject really looks African American and is pretty much known as such. While it is annoying to track down a source that states Beyonce is in fact a black woman (just an example), it is something that can be challenged by anyone and should be sourced. Same goes for this Native Mexican decent category which, in my opinion, is a lot less obvious. The user needs to provide a source to support its inclusion or they need to stop adding it. If you need any additional input, please let me know. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

re: your message

Hi Span, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 01:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thatcher

Thank you for your help & advice. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 14:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Is a state funeral for Thatcher now an accepted fact? I thought it was merely under discussion? This article is the most recent I can find; it suggests a definite position has not been reached/confirmed/announced. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1034634/Lady-Thatcher-honoured-State-funeral.html Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Stoppard

No problem at all. Just trying to help. Are you a Stoppard fan? Phaeton23 (talk) 18:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan. Going to see R&GRD on Friday. I saw Tom a little while ago, lounging outside a pub near me, having a sneaky fag. We exchanged smiles. You are helping. Span (talk) 21:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Williams syndrome

Hi - my two edits to Williams syndrome came from The Language Instinct. I have that book at my other house right now. The quotes I got came from a form of the book I searched on Google Books, but for some reason it didn't give me the numbers of the pages. Perhaps someone has the book and can find which page it is on? Linguogeek (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I added them. Span (talk) 06:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring and BLP

Edit warring is in and of itself bad, but edit warring to maintain controversial material in a BLP is a serious offense. I highly suggest you make your case on Talk:Melanie Phillips and do not revert again. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I would back up a bit. I did not war, I reverted once. It is useful to discuss your mass deletions on an article talk page, even with BLPs. Please be careful what accusations you level at other editors. Thank you. Span (talk) 18:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Did I say that you were already edit warring? Making a change and then reverting after you were reverted is the path to edit warring, something I was cautioning you against. If you were to follow WP:BRD you'd go to the talk page instead. Please be careful to accuse people of leveling accusations that they have actually leveled. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I had not previously been reverted. The edit of Aug 1st was to do with a prize not Breivik content and that edit still stands. Span (talk) 06:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Melanie Phillips

Hi. I've started a discussion at Talk:Melanie Phillips about whether it's appropriate to mention her influence on Breivik. It would be useful to have some further details from you as to why you'd like to see the content included. SP-KP (talk) 16:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will come along later. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Duncan James

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Duncan James, without giving a valid reason for the removal. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Eversman (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Eversman, I gave a full edit summaries and links to the policy pages for the reasons I deleted the material at Duncan James. Perhaps you did not see them: "Remove unsourced cats. Rm unsourced info that is not covered by WP:EGRS". WP:EGRS and WP:BLPCAT say that information about a subject's sexuality should only be noted if it notable to their public life and that it is self-identified. There is no valid source given in this article for this. The Bisexual categories were also removed for this reason, as stated. Contributors making edits you may not like is not vandalism.Span (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that you do not understand very well Categorization of ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, as it is stated: Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT). And since Duncan James has stated in the given reference; I'm bisexual. I've been in loving relationships with men as well as women - and I'm not ashamed. But even though I fancy men, I still fancy women too., it is obvius that you are trying to justify your edits which can be characterized as vandalism. For everything you've deleted there was a valid source, but you have decided to ignore it. Shame is on you, not me, for such unconstructive edit.--Eversman (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a valid source because you just added one yesterday. Article histories are available for all to view. I gave full edit summaries with links to the guideline pages to explain the edits. You may not agree with my edit but it does not fall into the realm of vandalism. Now there is a citation, yes, but as I have outlined on Talk:Duncan James, James' sexuality is not "notable to his public life" re WP:BLPCAT. Span (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Question re talk

gday and thanks for the offer of advice at the top of my talk page. So here's the question: I need to reply to a comment on my talk page accusing me of edit warring - I suspect I may have inadvertently done so because Wikipedia seems to run on American time and I am in Australia. So what was two consecutive days here was all one day in America. But never mind I am happy to apologise and try to work with American time in future. But there doesn't seem to be a reply button so I can get back to him. Thanks for any help you can give Floccinauci (talk) 14:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

A message to you Spanglej

It is difficult to admit How Wikipedia is a welcome place actually Spanglej? because i really dont know who you are and i see that all these last weeks you were deleting any reference to the Best Poems site.

Why my page Best Poems Encyclopedia presenting the anthology i created has been deleted? while it was the same copy as the Project Gutenberg page and Poetry foundation page one. Are you promoting the services of some institutions and not others? Why if it is a 95% identical page, our page is considered as spam and not of these same identical websites links which we find in every poetry page like if Poetry is their own heritage. Is it this the "free" flag of Wikipedia?

And why my account i have created in 2006 "Wikipedia" and created with it the page "Djelloul Marbrook" has been blocked and then deleted?

01:35, 16 April 2006 Longhair (talk | contribs) blocked Wikipedia-editors (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Username) 23:40, 27 October 2006 Gurch (talk | contribs) deleted "User:Wikipedia-editors" ‎ (temporary userpage over 1 month old for indefinitely blocked user)

Why for exemple this Longhair i tried to contact to unblock my account hasn't been deleted while he refused even to reply to my requests to unblock this account?

Is it our IP adresses who seems to you that we come from a third class world and that only what you suggest is the right thing?

We havent thousands and hundreds links like these seo promotters of Poets.org and Poetryfoundation whose links are in every poetry page in this encyclopedia. It looks that it isnt an open encyclopedia. How is it possible that my links have been deleted from pages i have my self created in the past years and you come add links from entities who havent placed any word to create pages of Pablo Neruda and others except in their websites and you give them all credits? It looks like they become your associates?

You did a great work here deleting 10 links i added in 7 months

Well Spanglej despite the fact that you have an agenda... i don't want to imagine that you have a paranoïa too. You seems to be proud of this Blessings from Algeria. I can send you flowers if you want especially as you are a wondeful london based widely-published award-winning poet lady who don't need to be go so down. Cheers

PS: I sent you an email via you friend Lifebaka and dont suspect "we will turn up in different guises all over the place" like you are pretending it. We have so many things to do and believe me we cannot find time to do all what is waiting. It's you who seems paranoaic waiting when a new link to our website will appear that you can jump on it. It seems that it is a passion for you. So let it be — Preceding unsigned comment added by CRumens (talk • contribs) 23:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Ruskin

Thanks for your message. I really appreciate your advice. When you say that Wikipedia shies away from original sources, what specifically are you referring to in the article? There is really only one reliable source of Ruskin's writings (the "Library Edition" and scholarly editions of his letters) but, where possible, I have tried to refer to reliable, scholarly works (online and in print) where an argument is being putting forward that might be contested, or for which a source reference is clearly important. I am happy to review any points that are in question. The main difficulty I have with the 'Wikipedia' method is that one seems to have to justify points not in contention. And choices of reference are consequently rather arbitrary (it would be easy to find a page reference that agrees with most points in all major and minor biographies of Ruskin in print). I do, however, appreciate that there is still more work to do here, and I am very keen to learn from and work with you to achieve the best possible results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrelPosrednik77 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Points not in contention include, for example, his dates and places of birth and death, his parentage and so on. (admittedly, in June, when I started, Ruskin was said to have died in France! but this is simply wrong (vandalism) and not a point of contention). I noticed that the ODNB had been added as a source for some of these "uncontested facts". But any biography of Ruskin, including encyclopaedia written in Russia (for exmaple), include this information, let alone the well-respected biographies of Ruskin, some short, some long, including those by Collingwood, Cook, Leon, Viljoen, Dearden, O'Gorman, Hewison, Batchelor, Hilton and I could go on. Indeed, you would not be able to find any respected source that disagreed with the contention that Ruskin disliked and criticised the Crystal Palace (but the greenhouse comment should, I agree, be a quote backed up by the source.) Clearly if there IS a serious question over something, then a source, sometimes more than one, ought to be referenced. But it in any other case, it does not seem worthwhile. And indeed, it is difficult to know what source to privilege when nearly everyone is agreed on something. That said, there are doubtless parts of the article that still require attention, and I commend you and Wikipedia for the rigorous approach you take. Like I say, I do apreciate your input and assistance.OrelPosrednik77 (talk) 14:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

About.com

There is a discussion about the reliability of the Simon Baker interview on RSN [[1]] should you care to comment. Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Bette Davis deletions

You're right, I was careless and apologize. The deletions are by 71.71.83.199 and the photos (on the Bette Davis page) were all from Wikipedia Commons. No telling what the rationale for their removal might have been. Upsmiler (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

quick question

Hi Spanglej. Just wanted to ask something about the Kate Hepburn page (quicker to ask you here) - if it has now been upgraded to B class on the biography project, does that mean it's okay to go ahead and upgrade it to B on the woman's history project as well? It looks a bit silly right now, with them having different grades. I'm imagining it must be fine to do this but I wanted to check first. Thanks. --Lobo512 (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a look on the project page and can't even see a 'request for assessment' section. And I was thinking that whatever rating an article has, it must apply across the board..? But I dunno, it doesn't matter that much.

While I'm here I may as well ask what you think about something - I've found a very detailed table of KH's theatre credits (here: http://katharine-hepburn.webs.com/theatre.htm), it would be good to have a similar table somewhere on here. I was thinking it might be best to expand her filmography page to include theatre and put one there. Do you think that's a good idea?--Lobo512 (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I've improved the rationales for Philly Story and Golden Pond, and changed Alice Adams to a trailer shot (which I may just remove altogether because it looks pretty crap). I'll take away the Little Women one I guess. I'm not gonna be the one to remove the non-free images I've mentioned (plus Love Affair) because I obviously think they deserve to be there. If someone else insists and removes them then I suppose I won't get in the way, but yeah I won't be the one to do it. I'd rather just have the tag at the top of the page! Thanks for leaving a note on the women's history page. I'll do a theatre table at some point (is it easy to get an article's title changed?) --Lobo512 (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Keats

Hi and sorry about the spelling. I hope you dont mind my fiddeling, I think I told you before how much I admire your work on the article; its a real gem. Ceoil (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. No, you didn't mention it before. Thanks very much. It means a lot coming from an editor such as yourself. Please do fiddle, it's good to have a fresh pair of eyes looking over it. I always want to add more in the works section (of course). Best wishes for the weekend. Span (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I did mention it before, I suppose you lost me in all the endless platitudes! I've been watching the page develope over the last few years and its exemplary. My one request is that the lead does not quite match the quality of the body; I'm being mindful of the fact that a lot of viewers will just read the lead and hop on. I think the article would benifit a lot with a substantial 3 para lead, you obviously know the sources backwards, it would be worthwile. Best. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry to have missed it. You're right about the lead. I'll have a look at it. As an old hand, what would you say the article would need to raise it to a GA? Going for GAs and FAs are not normally my thing but there are a couple of articles such as Jabberwocky where some brief and general thoughts would be interesting. Best wishes Span (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Its more or less FA standard IMO. You would only need cosmetics at this stage to get a promotion, but I'm more of a pictures than a words person so I'll ask Truthkeeper to take a look and advise; best you'll get from me is light copy edits and encouragment. She has a lot more experience with lith articles, and I know is interested in Keats. I would dearly like to see you push the page and get a wider audience. Ceoil (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the thoughts, the copy edits and the encouragement. Span (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Great; as I'm going through the copyedit I'll start leaving hidden comments where I think explanation or clarificastion is needed. If I change the intended maeaning at any point, revert at will; I have thick skin! Ceoil (talk) 13:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Span (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

My ears are burning! Actually you two are making my watchlist light up. I've been watching both pages for a long time, but have always been focused elsewhere. Spang - Keats looks like it's in pretty good shape, but I agree with Ceoil about the lead. I've also been watching, with interest, the work to Jabborwocky. I tried to do something about the main Alice page, which is a disgrace in my view, so it would be really nice to have at least one of the Alice pages at GA level. I have sources at hand for Jabborwocky and can most certainly get you more from academic databases if you're interested in having them. Just let me know and I'll search to see what I can find. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper. More sources for Jabberwocky would be great and thoughts on Keats too. I'll revise the Keats lead and work up both articles. Span (talk) 13:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't actually read Keats yet, but have looked in occasionally and it looks like it's in fairly good shape. I'll read over it this weekend and let you know what I think, but honestly from a quick look, if you're up for it, I think you should consider a FAC run. Maybe take it through GA and PR first for more eyes and feedback. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, OK then. Great. Span (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're in good hands with Ceoil. Certainly without his help and encouragement many of my pages would never have been finished. If you're not used the review process, I'd say go for GA first, or if you want submit to peer review and I can pick it up and review it. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added requests for peer review to the Jabberwocky and Keats talk pages. Should I add them to the peer review list too or is this enough? Thanks Span (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I think they need to go the peer review list to be transcluded properly. I've templated Keats that I'm doing it so no one else gets to it, and I'll do the same to Jabberwocky. Ceoil can help with the reviews or carry on with his copyedits. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems they have appeared automatically. Span (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Plus anyone who wants to get both Keats and Jabberwocky to FA has my admiration and thanks. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

PS A bot lists (transcludes) peer review requests at WP:PR, but it can take a half hour or more.

Ah. Apologies. Span (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Ruhrfisch, that was my fault for making the suggestion - maybe we should have done one at a time. At any rate, Ceoil and I will do both of them so it won't add to the backlog, and I'll pick up another from the backlog since I'm currently not writing. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem - I have a boilerplate message I paste in for anyone that posts two or more PRs in a day (boiler plate ends at "... I will let it slide since this is the first time." Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jabberwocky

Somewhere I have a paper that discusses the rigid structure of the poem. Can't think off the top of my head where I read it, or where I stuffed it, but am posting here to ask you remind me if I don't get it to you. I'll be at my library this afternoon and will check one of the books there as well. At any rate, should get to the PR for Jabberwocky tonight, but off the top of my head I think, per the sources, that the page needs to explain Carroll/Dodgson's background as a mathematician and how that affected the structure of the poem. Somewhere I've read that although illogical it's perfectly logical which is what makes it a classic. Will have to find that for you too. Also I hope I didn't overwhelm with the Keats comments - because of the formatting it ended up looking a little overwhelming but I was lazy and didn't want to bother with reformatting. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No, no, the Keats comments are great. I have to go to my library tomorrow to pick up the armfuls of biographies, so can't start work in earnest till then. The Jabberwocky suggestions are good. Do you think it's worth working on that too or just to focus on Keats - not having done this before I guess I was looking for a sense of where the articles are at. You have both been super helpful. Thanks for all your time. Span (talk)

I think you should work on whichever feels more comfortable and you know the best. Since the Jabberwocky PR is up I'll go ahead and fill it in, but there's no deadline as you know, so it can be done slowly or even be allowed to archive. Personally I think both pages have great potential - I've been watching them for over a year and am thankful to Ceoil for giving me a shove to look at them. To be honest, I think Keats will be the more difficult - important author bios are just plain hard - but also the more rewarding, and with work will get into FA range, without a doubt. Jabberwocky is easier and doesn't need a lot for GA, and I think can also be FA. But, if I were you, I think about it, decide which to work on first, make sure Ceoil helps (he's good at that), and have fun with it. You have a couple of really nice pages here - I'm impressed. Truthkeeper (talk) 18:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder of 'no deadline'. Both were fun to write and will be fun to work up. I've wandered away from just poetry in the last year, being drawn into bickering on ANI and category rows etc. It will be good to get back to focusing on the place I can make a solid contribution. Span (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I hear you re ANI and rows, and think that since you are so invested in both the Keats and Jabberwocky pages you should divide your time, keep both going. Arguing is an easy trap on wiki and a pointless time sink, let it fall away from you and concentrate on what brought you here in the first place. I'll watch and help as much as I can. Ceoil (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Span (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick question #2

Or more of a request for your opinion: I've just written a quick summary of Hep's career under the filmography section, does it read with too much bias? Like its trying to big her up? Everything there is true, but I thought I should check. Same question goes to the main credits page too. Work your neutralising magic if you think its necessary (and can). --Lobo512 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Span (talk) 18:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hiya, hope you've enjoyed this lovely weather. I'd just like to apply this same question to the legacy section, which I've been working on. Does it read okay? Neutral? If there are any improvements you feel you can make, please do. And to the article in general, please let me know if there's anything you think is problematic! I've got it in my head that I want to get it to GA now (I've got so into the article that it's just the next natural step) so need to adhere to all that. I'm having to make loads of reference changes to the article because I didn't realise you couldn't rely so much on autobiographies...work work work! Somehow I'm still managing to enjoy it, I must be mad... --Lobo512 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to say I'm delighted that you think the article is great, I really appreciate you saying that, and please don't feel like you need to justify any changes to what I've done! I really don't feel confident in it anyway, this is the first time I've written a thing since I left uni two years ago, and fully expect that changes will need to be made. Really, I want people to make all the changes they can! It's ridiculous that I've ended up almost completely responsible for the entire article, lol. --Lobo512 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You seem in your element. Remember that you only ever need to take on what you want to. There's no pressure, no deadline. I think it's best to stick to what feels satisfying. WP is no fun at all when it turns into a chore. Take on responsibility if it fits! You're doing well. Span (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah don't worry, I wasn't implying that I resent it or anything, I just find it funny. I've become a bit addicted to it I guess, like it's my current project. I'm not forcing myself at all. :) --Lobo512 (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Pics of Tolstoy

Hi, I just love Ilya Repin's dramatic life-size image of Tolstoy, which I saw a few years ago in a travelling exhibition; but if you want to relegate it to the bottom of the page it becomes so small you can barely see it. Maybe it would be useful to include one of Repin's paintings in the text (I personally like color images over black and white photo's, but I understand this is a question of personal taste) and then link to the commons category? Jane (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sure. The problem is there are hundreds of pictures of Tolstoy because he lived in the first era of photography and was adored by his followers. We could fill whole articles just with great licensed images of him. Sandwiching text between images or overstuffing the article with images doesn't fly. I'll look again and see what could change. Thanks for the addition. It is a great picture. Best wishes Span (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand the problem entirely, but the nice thing about the pic I added is that it poetically underlines the religious conversion he made and the affect it had on the artists of his time. Repin also made a nice painting of him as a peasant here. In this painting he is wearing the same blue shirt as in the color photo at the top right of the article. Jane (talk) 11:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have moved it up without and adjusted the images. Maybe I acted over-hastily. The article has historically been an image dump and bastion of political flag waving. It is a great image, you're right. As I understand it Tolstoy lived in the blue garb of the peasantry (to show solidarity) for much of his later life. Best wishes Span (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks nice I think. Many Anna Karenina fans (like me) were shocked to discover that he dismissed that pre-conversion work as "frivolous" and refused to discuss it after his conversion. How odd that this page has become a place for flag-waving! I didn't know that Tolstoy has become a political subject. Cheers! Jane (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

He was being used as a mascot by Christian Pacifists for a long while and then the anarchists tried to co-opt him. Tolstoy had a rich and diverse life. I guess his political inspirations changed a lot towards the end and his early writings didn't fit for him any more. Even then, it seems, people were desperate to have him in their camp. Have we gone past the age of -isms. Hope so? Best wishes Span (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Grey Delisle

I was contacted by Grey via email regarding her relationship status and to put up a new photo of her. Im sorry for the constant revisions, but this is something she wants Corradopark3 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corradopark3 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What's your email address BTW? I want to discuss this matter on there rather than here.

Corradopark3 (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, my email is enabled. If you look at the column on the far left of my user page, there should be a link there. Just to say, I don't know anything about Grey Delisle at all, and have little idea how OTRS works. Fred might have access to more info. I think it's to Delisle's advantage to have less rather than more said about her. Wikipedia aims to protect the subject's privacy. It is no bad thing, IMHO to not go into the details of current relationships. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Anna Roy. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Corradopark3 (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Grey DeLisle

Hi, I'm a bit puzzled about your actions taken with Grey DeLisle. A new editor has been trying to update a relationship status and is the process of finding RSs. To supress mentions in the article and on my user page seems rather OTT. There was nothing sensitive in it other than details on a current partner, information which goes unsourced in many thousands of other articles. I'm not saying it's presence should not be challenged but I don't understand why it should be 'suppressed' point blank. Was there a BLP complaint made? More background to the action would be appreciated. Thank you. Span (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

An OTRS request for oversight. Suppression was based on use of the name of the supposed boyfriend. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for the info. Does that mean that even with an RS the info would not stand? Span (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Not an issue if there is a reliable source like the Music City News. Although for possibly controversial information, such as sex change, you should find more than one source. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that someone mailed WP to specifically request that the relationship details were removed or was it an automatic flag based on the man's name based on past difficulties? Corradopark3 is keen to work on the personal life section. I am unclear as to what to advise. Span (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Images

Thanks for the heads-up. As monitor sizes differ among readers, I think it looks different from how I place the images to what others see. I've never been a fan of putting the images on the left (unless the article already was making use of it) and usually add some images to filmographies/award listings as the bottom half of the article may have nothing, and it helps to break up the text with an image. I mostly put the images in the article where I think they can be relevant, but allow the main contributors of the articles decide final placement, sizing, and inclusion. Thanks for the kind words and enjoy your weekend. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

13 Feb 2009?

Hi, I was wondering about the signature date of this edit. Finger slip? Anyway, nice to see that someone else is keeping an eye on this editor. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Crikey. It is obviously waaay passed my bedtime. Thanks for the heads up. Best wishes Span (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, I notice you corrected it. Cheers and night :-) - DVdm (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Tom Chivers COI?

Hello, I'm answering your question about the above on your talk page, as I'm not sure if you're automatically notified if I answer on my own page (sorry, just getting to grips with things here). I've added information to the discussion pages for both Tom Chivers and Penned in the Margins. Hope that's useful - CouldBeAnybody (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC).

Chesterton and fantasy

I think The Ball and the Cross also qualifies as fantasy. See here and here. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Grey Panthers

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Gray Panthers. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 04:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The Gray Panthers article is an educational assignment of the Political Participation course at Southern Connecticut State University, as supported by the WMF and Ambassador Program. The specific issues identified are provided for student support. I am puzzled by an edit summary that indicates maintenance tags were removed due to redundancy, when no other issues existed that might duplicate. The specific issues that require addressing involve citation style, proper capitalization, copyediting, and use of primary sourcing. The removal of unaddressed maintenance tags may serve to confuse students focusing on compliance with editing guidelines. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 04:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the tags, because, I suggest, they seem redundant. Having checked for capitalisation aberrations I can see not the problems. There are inline citations, the copy editing seems fine and multiple sources are used. If you disagree, then it might be useful to note what it is you are finding issue with, or better yet, fix them. I am not sure what you mean by "The specific issues identified are provided for student support." Does this suggest you put problems in so students can find them? It's also helpful to remember not to template the regulars. Span (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Redundant is defined as going beyond what is necessary. When the issues exist, necessary applies. While I understand WP:DTR, regular editors generally understand and are able to identify the issues and recognize the import of refraining from removing maintenance issues before they are addressed. The issue here is not for me to "fix them". While this would generally be the case per WP:SOFIXIT, this is a teaching assignment through Wikimedia's Global Education Program, with the support of the Ambassador Program. The comment "The specific issues identified are provided for student support" refers to actions taken within the scope of the coursework. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

This leaves me not one jot the wiser but am happy to concede that I must be missing some glaring error. Span (talk) 19:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Tony Bennett

Thank you for your guidance and explanation for deleting my book entry, the book has been out of print over ten years but turns up on Amazon - I will delete a similar entry - new boys have to learn ! regards Chrisphase (talk) 11:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)chrisphase

No worries. Span (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I just...

...went ahead and put Kate forward as a GA nominee. I still feel like the prose needs some polish, but the person who reviewed the article said they thought it would probably pass, so I just bit the bullet. Eek! It will probably take ages to actually happen but still exciting. :) --Lobo512 (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw your PR. Great that you put in for GA. I'll look over the article again but I think it's doing well. Span (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unhelpful

Span, I don't appreciate your attempt to introduce an ad hominem to the Emily Critchley Articles-for-deletion page. I have no personal reasons for wishing the page be deleted. Have you any personal reasons for wishing it be kept (you didn't reply to my previous query above)? If you had concerns, perhaps it would have been polite to raise the issue on my talk page first, as I have done, rather than risk clouding an ongiong discussion?

I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor and have asked for advice from other editors at various stages of editing, as well as reading through relevant guideline pages; I do not accept that 'the guidelines here are clear'; if they were then there would not be a split on the discussion page of three for deletion (excluding my original nomination) and two (one 'weak', the other yours) for keeping. From what I have read in the guidelines, it does not appear true that winning any national prize automatically precludes deletion, and one wouldn't expect this to be the case as there are so many of them awarded every year. CouldBeAnybody (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your Masefield setting comment on my talk page - I've replied there to keep the conversation together.--MistyMorn (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

...And just to say hello, I'll update here.

I now feel that the Housman case is perhaps somewhat exceptional, and that in the case of Masefield, a similar discussion on the musical settings might be better placed as a separate article following summary style, though I've no idea where to insert the 'parent' sentence/s on the main Masefield page.

Talking of words for music perhaps, could I also draw your attention to Ivor Gurney, whose page seems still to be awaiting formal recognition from the Poetry Project? According to one commentator of Gurney's music [concluding paragraph, here], "If anyone deserves to be regarded as 'The Georgian Composer', it is Ivor Gurney." When I went to remind myself of exactly who the 'Georgian Poets' were, I found myself getting caught between two articles. I don't know whether you or any of your Poetry Project colleagues have some sort of a take on them.

Best--MistyMorn (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that some coverage of musical settings on Masefield's page would be entirely appropriate. The body text of the article isn't particularly long or comprehensive so there is room for musical exposition. I would suggest just trying something in the article - be bold, see what happens. We can always move, tweak or develop it. I've added the various banners. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Span. I'll have a shot...--MistyMorn (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit Summaries

Span, thanks for the compliment. You are right about the edit summaries - will be more conscientious about them. Rogermx (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And for you

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For all the help you've given me since I cluelessly started here in August. I've already found myself repeating your advice to other editors, you've taught me so much. Thanks! Lobo512 (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Thank you for your suggestion about sources. All categories were based on strong sources of ongoing commitment to the faith. That there faith may not be discussed in the articles is unfortunate, but it doesn't detract from the fact that these individuals are devoted Catholics. Please do not undo my work. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akasseb (talk contribs) 01:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

You are undoing my work on articles that not only mention these individuals' Catholic faith, but also provide sources documenting ongoing practice. Please correct the articles that fall into this category (Kidman, Ingraham, etc). Meanwhile, I will add sources to the articles that do not explicitly mention an individual's Catholic faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akasseb (talk contribs) 23:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. For more on category sourcing please see WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS. Thank you. Span (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

List of SK

It's me again! I only need you to write them in the list with a citation, there is no need of an article about them: you only need a short description. They are very prolific killers, you need them. If you want, you can take a look in the Italian page, I have written it (:D) try to look them aroud the net and find them; for Fernando Hernandez Leyva (33+ victims) and Vasili Komaroff (33) you can find a complete article, you only have to traslate it from italian to english. 93.69.5.240 (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I think you have the wrong editor. It seems you are continuing a conversation we have not yet started. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the IP address is not the same; don't panic. If you think I'm not the right editor, this will be my last message, you don't need to answer. I hope to create my account here, one day: I want to do some edits becacuse the list isn't complete. I have taken you something (the names in the message), in the meanwhile you can do some researches and you may also write them. I forgot to write a guy called "Mesfewi" (36+) and David Thabo Simelane (28-35). You can find me on Wiki.it, my nickname is "Logged". Now goodbye! 91.81.227.186 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea what this is about. Span (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky

Hey, aren't you a little bit too harsh in your statements? You say the expert studyes from different experts, including AIMEE DOSTOYEVSKY (YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS), is Ukrainian nationalism? It appears that you have a problem with Ukrainians or Dostoyevsky as a topic? Your deleting of the entire content is not by the rules of Wikipedia. If you do not return the contents, I will be forced to contact the administrators. We can talk about the some changes but you can't simply delete entire content with well known sources. Thank you!--UAKasper (talk) 14:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this is best discussed on the article talk page. I have replied there. Span (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What you did was wrong!--UAKasper (talk) 15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have opened the discussion on the Dostoyevsky talk page. Please debate the question there. Thank you Span (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you suggest a short article from my text? You can write it on the Dostoyevsky talk page ... I believe that is worth to write something about Ukraine, Gogol and Balzac. Thanks!--UAKasper (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am looking into it. Thank you. Span (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No any suggestion for Dostoyevsky?--UAKasper (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Reversion

Please see Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Your reversion of my edit to Rita Hayworth was unwarranted. The information on her personal life as it was written was disjunctive. I had rewritten the information on her marriage to Judson in a manner supporting the description of her career. The sentence on divorce was entirely out of place. As mentioned in WP:ROWN, reversion drives away editors, which is clearly detrimental to Wikipedia. Please modify to improve, rather then reverting. Thank you. ENeville (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Span (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I objected to the reversion, as I said. I actually wondered if you had even read the text as you had reverted it. That text introduced the person of Judson twice in the same section, amongst other problems. It was consistent with text that lacked cohesion because it had been variously edited by different editors, as is in the nature of Wikipedia. I appreciate that you extensively edited the article previously. As indicated in WP:EDITING, even the best articles should not be considered complete, so one should expect ongoing input. I appreciate the compositional conflict between overall chronology and sectional subject. To me, noting that her personal life is covered elsewhere, her divorce from Judson seems relevant in description of her career only to the extent that Judson or her emotional life impacted her career. I have made another edit towards that end. But I recognize that further edits, better still, are possible.  :-) ENeville (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There was no lack of cohesion from many adding editors because I rewrote the biography. It don't agree that Wikipedia articles are inherently fragmented because of its collaborative nature. I have no conflict, of course your input is welcome. As I mentioned in my message, I was just confused by your reasoning and asked to you take me through it. I see there was a repeat of the Judson marriage info at the start of film career. I think your rewrite today, re-adding the divorce info helps to smooth out the narrative line. I don't agree that reversions drives away editors, although new ones might take it personally. Taking edits personally never helps. Open discussion usually does. Any additional references and information you can add to the Hayworth article is welcome. Thank you Span (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Penis removal

The list is not well sourced. most of its sources are tabloid like news articles, with only a few book sources, and most of the articles are in a foreign langauge- chinese. this list actually constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, by putting together unconnected incidents.

Imagine if I culled news articles regarding every time a burglary happened, and created an article called "list of Burglary incidents", and used those articles as references, while sprinkling in a few book sources about burglaries. My desire to delete the article has nothing to do with the type of content it represents (relating to sexual body parts)

since you challeneged by deletions, the onus is on you to reply to my justifications on the talk pages of the articles.Bunser (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Existing lists are mostly consisted of events which have articles of their own on wikipedia due to their notability For example, see List of serial killers by number of victims, List of assassinations and assassination attempts, List of bank robbers and robberies, and List of kidnappings

almost all of their entries link to articles of their own, List of kidnappings has Mary Jemison, List of bank robbers and robberies has Banco Central burglary at Fortaleza, List of assassinations and assassination attempts has Ehud, List of serial killers by number of victims has Luis Garavito. Very few red links are included

the only two entries at list of cases of penis removal which have their own article are John and Lorena Bobbitt and Sada Abe. the rest are all unimporant cases about a random guy mostly in china, mr joe six pack getting his penis cut off by his wife, they aren't notable, they don't have their own wikipedia articles. These lists specifically state, "The following is a list of some of the most famous assassinations and assassination attempts. It is not intended to be exhaustive." "This is a list of famous bank robberies, bank robbers and gangs involved in bank robberies."Bunser (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your message

Hi Spanglej! Thank you for the polite reminder that I could have fixed the page. I think its better for an editor more familiar with the article to edit it. Somebody else could unintentionally introduce citation errors on the page (as you have done)! I am also unsure if [http://www.britishmuseum.org/the_museum/management_and_governance/trustees/bonnie_greer.aspx British Museum profile page] is a proper cite on the page. We are all here to help improve WP! Cheers, Tinpisa (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Phillips

Hi - there was a fair bit of discussion and the edit you made today wasn't consensus - I only supported the addition to the homosexual section with the rebuttal and you didn't add it, why is that? I reverted you till we discuss . its the edit below that I supported , not supported but would be prepared to consider and not oppose. - Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"In 2011, the LGBT rights group, Stonewall, voted Philips as "Bigot of the Year", the public figure most likely to have "gone out of their way to harm, hurt or snub lesbian, gay and bisexual people in the last year". Particular criticism was reserved for her Daily Mail column in January 2011, in which she accused the UK government of brainwashing children by including references to gays in lessons about censuses and population movement. Philips called it "an abuse of childhood", part of a "ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour"."

I didn't see the bit about the rebuttal. Do add it in. I've got a bit lost in all the strands of arguing. I thought you had got some consensus for your suggestion. The discussion now seems to have sprawled and stalled. We seem to be tangled up in discussing the merits of four different awards against many different guidelines. If we are all acting in good faith and not blocking additions at every turn we should be able to work something out. Just looking at the Stonewall award we have Diva, BBC and Al-Jazeera sources, it seems. The BLP caveat about being conservative seems to apply to how we present the details of the award, clearly not that the award itself needs to be conservative. Perhaps it's best to stick to sorting one award at a time. I think my time for a Wikibreak over the winter is fast approaching. Best wishes. Span (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Winter (uk season) is the most active time round here, you should stay. Although I wouldn't object to the addition above if it was added, I would not want to be the user responsible for adding it to a BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused and probably over-tired. You are suggesting the above addition (indented) but don't think it's suitable for a BLP; is that right? Is it because it's not conservatively presented? Span (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise and as you were very strongly discussing for the inclusion of this attacking so called award, I moved to not object or , wouldn't remove the comment above, as it at least has some kind of rebuttal/explanation of the reasons for the award - but I wouldn't add it myself. Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page.Span (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

CoMC

Re [2]: there was some weird formatting failure. Anyway, your sig didn't take William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Yay, very pleased to be getting it underway, and with an experienced FA writer/reviewer no less. That certainly is lucky. Feel free to join in! I've started work on Spencer's page now as well, haha. --Lobo512 (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I won't be able to do anything on the page tonight because I've had a trapped nerve recently that's giving me a lot of pain in my right arm, and although it's been better it's bad again today. I'll also be at work all day tomorrow, so it's quite possible I won't even do anything on it til the weekend. I don't know if you feel like making any of the suggested changes, but if you do then go for it. I'm not actually asking you to, but I thought maybe you might be interested, and if you are - then don't

feel like I particularly want to do them myself or anything! --Lobo512 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Biker poetry

Thanks for stopping in and working on Biker poetry. Looks like you did a lot of editing on it. I can't say that I like that so much of the text was deleted, but then again, I've always believed brevity is a good thing. :) I do like the emphasis placed on Diane Wakoski. Great job! Akbikerpoet (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Steve Martin

Would you mind explaining the reason for reverting my edit? --Musdan77 (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Span (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)