User talk:JFQ

Welcome to Wikipedia. Remember to always sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. —Tobias Bergemann 07:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd add to that "make sure you are signed in". I had to track you down via the "contributions" list associated with your IP address, because, well, you weren't signed in. Luckily, I found you, though (I hope), thanks to your "contributions" list including your addition of your name to the Poetry WikiProject. If you're who I think you are, then I've (partially) reverted one of your edits, and I'd like for you to see why.

If you don't share an IP (hey, I've seen it happen), then you're the one who needs to see this. Judging from the self-description on your userpage, I don't think I'm mistaken in assuming you made the edit I (partially) reverted. Down on the bottom, the third subheading under "Recent edits", that's where I bring it up on the Talk page.

It's in response to what I'm pretty sure is an edit you made while not signed in. If am I right in thinking it was you, then you removed an entire paragraph because either a.) you disagreed with the POV noted in the paragraph and did not realize it was a common one that was simply uncited in the article (as I noted in my edit summaries and on the Talk page, I have sources I'm getting ready to cite for it, including a very good one that I'm waiting for a stable link on; I'm just, for one, waiting for a stable link on the better of the two sources, and, additionally, not familiar enough with the Wikipedia citation formats yet to do them for the other source or two I found), b.) you didn't like the examples given (I'll admit that I'm not familiar enough with all of them to disagree with you, and while I did revert part of your edit, I did keep pretty much all of the specific examples that you questioned the validity of out, replacing them with what I consider better ones, one of which I actually have a source for that specifically refers to it as fan fiction, even).

Now, I'm not saying you didn't have a right to question the validity of such a broad-ranging definition that wasn't cited, or question such vague (and possibly incorrect) examples. You do. However, I would appreciate it if, if you still disagree with the current revision, you would a.) bring up your exact problems with it on the Talk page, where we can work it out much better if we discuss it thoroughly, b.) add to it, or c.) both of the above... instead of just deleting an entire paragraph. Again - I've seen the "it's the modern version/extension of the oral storytelling tradition" theory a lot, in everything from newspaper articles to academic papers, so it's not exactly an uncommon view. Feel free to give better examples, feel free to tweak it, but please don't delete the portion that's actually sourceable, even if it is unsourced at the moment. I'm still waiting for the final, stable linked version of Dr. Judge's paper on eighteenth-century fan fiction to become available for proper citation; she mentions the "oral storytelling" view in it, and gives a citation for where she found it. Also, if you check the bottom of the archived page for the fan fiction article's previous peer review (it's linked from a little box at the top of the Talk:Fan fiction), you'll find a link to an article that references that view quite a bit. Again; it's a common theory, and I want you to understand that before you rush to edit it again, as what we're trying to do in the introduction is give an overview of all the major theories relating to "what is fan fiction?" - and that's a common enough one to go there, definitely. Again - edit to your heart's content, but please don't entirely remove the sections referring to the existance of a very common theory that fan fiction is the modern extension of the oral literature tradition, which is actually sourceable, just not yet sourced. And, hash it out on the Talk page (I've got the page on Watch, so I'll catch it, I promise!), and read the Talk page, before you edit that same section again. Please? :) Thank you. Runa27 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Poetry Roll Call

WikiProject Poetry is having a revival and we are trying to determine who is still active in the project. If you are, please answer this roll call by placing an *asterisk* next to your name on the list of participants here. Thanks, Wrad 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)