User talk:Macspaunday/Archive 2015

Notice of Noticeboard review.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MusicAngels (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it was swiftly settled: "Administrators' noticeboard". - Macspaunday (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something is very odd with the pages created by MusicAngels. Every time I try to edit he/she removes what I've done or accuses me of vandalism. Do you know what is going on here? 19:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)19:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)19:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:102:B30:12E:1802:787F:2464 (talk)

I'm as puzzled as you are, I'm afraid! I'll be very interested in the outcome of all this. - Macspaunday (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have recommended that two articles created by User:MusicAngels be deleted: Poetry in the early 19th century and Poetry in the early 21st century He/she has created them unilaterally without debate. Please feel free to weigh in and maybe we can address it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.146.210 (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've been involved an administrator-level dispute started by User:MusicAngels, any action that I might take about those pages would look like revenge, so it's best if I stay out of this. Of course I agree that the pages created by User:MusicAngels have no value, but that's a matter for other people to decide. You may want to create an account for yourself so that admins and others can get in touch with you when needed. Thanks for making contact. - Macspaunday (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm Samtar. I noticed that you recently removed some content from User talk:SilkTork without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. samtar ^(msg) 21:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Samtar - That was a mistake! I didn't know until I saw your alert that I had done it!! I'm using a phone and must have hit the wrong link by mistake. My apologies! I should know better than to use my phone for this. Thank you for reverting! - 21:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NightMailCrewe.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NightMailCrewe.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to keep it as far as I can see! - Macspaunday (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

W. H. Auden

Hi, many thanks for the work on Auden article to keep it at GA-Status. Wondered if you could look at reference 52 and give it some context with full details of the item. Personally I would get rid of the {{rp}} template and use either short footnoting or full citation. Keith D (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your work on the page to sort out details that I didn't know how to fix. Reference 52 got broken in that miniature edit-scuffle that broke out yesterday afternoon; thank you for catching it. I've now fixed it. To replace the {{rp}} template, I suppose the easiest thing would be a footnote something like, "Haffenden, W. H. Auden: The Critical Heritage, p. 123" - is that what you're suggesting? Or would "Haffenden, p. 123" be possible, since Haffenden is listed in the Sources? Sorry to respond with a question, and grateful for your help. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and replaced all those templates with brief footnotes, which certainly look better. Thanks again for the suggestion. - Macspaunday (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change, certainly looks better that way. By the way you have pinged another user, they appear not to be active, but the space is significant. Keith D (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith D:This tells me not to try to edit before the second cup of coffee - and, to the other user whom I mistakenly pinged (I've removed the bad pings from the page, though it's probably too late) here are my apologies for wasting your time! Meanwhile, speaking now to the real Keith D, I certainly hope you'll continue to keep this page on your radar. Thank you again. - Macspaunday (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auden is on my watchlist, so I should spot changes to it. I hope the long quote does not reappear, I was about to comment when another user removed it. Keith D (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	You get an A for effort, but I'm afraid Eliot is still not high on my list. Your efforts are greatly appreciated though. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I only believe in WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK if it suits me, as my chatty talk page should prove amply. :) Drmies (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Drmies: I may have violated that very policy on your talk page a few minutes ago, but every word was directly related to various edits on Wikipedia, so I'll try not to feel too guilty about it. - Macspaunday (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Poetry in the Early 21st Century?

How can it be that the problematic page Poetry in the early 21st century is back? It was endorsed for deletion not only for the copyright violations (about which I know nothing) but also, and more importantly, because it was created out of whole cloth by one biased editor (who has now been banned indefinitely) and has no value whatsoever, either as a compendium or a historical document. I am going to propose deletion again! User:Fuhghettaboutit User:Macspaunday, User:Drmies User:Poetic1920 12:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC) 128.90.39.158 (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Is it safe to weigh in? Thanx for getting rid of the Bloom in Auden (that sounds rather poetic, doesn't it!). I am far from an expert on 21st century poetry but the page is abominable. I don't want to be the first to go...Poetic1920 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should be safe now. The author of the page has indeed been blocked indefinitely. But I shouldn't take any part in this, because the author got into a dispute with me earlier, and that means that any opinion I express now would automatically lack the presumption of impartiality. - Macspaunday (talk) 21:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note to User:Drmies

Hello @Drmies: - I see that you've powered off your phone and disconnected the wires to the doorbell, so I'm not intruding on your talk page. But I wanted to thank you for the recommendation of the Lais of Marie de France. I ordered the Penguin version; the Hackett edition is out of print, though easily available. It's also time I got around to Christine de Pizan, as friends have been telling me for years that I'm late to the party. I think you'll find Vanity Fair well worth the effort, especially during a break from online life. Actually it's no effort at all, as it goes down very easily. I have a feeling that you'll recognize some of the characters as still being active in Wikipedia. Anyway, when you rewire the doorbell or power up the phone, please let me know how you enjoy Thackeray - and thank you again for everything - Macspaunday (talk) 00:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your ping! Glad you enjoyed! Wait--Hackett is out of print?? That's bad news, maybe, for my students next semester. (Christine de Pizan is also on that syllabus; Norton publishes a collection of texts in their Critical Edition series.) Thanks for letting me know. The Penguin is good, nothing wrong with it--it's the Burgess/Busby translation, and it's fine and cheap; the Hackett has more material, including some other contemporary stories. Call me anytime: I don't have my voicemail activated, but my secretary will gladly take a message. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair

Got the Oxford World Classic, from my Romantic colleague who laughed at me. IT'S A THOUSAND PAGES!!! I'll check back in in a year or so. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading chapter 4. She's quite the ingenue, Miss Rebecca is. Good thing this isn't an American or French or Russian novel, or it would end terribly, as The Lady Catherine de Burgh can confirm. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Macspaunday. I'm on p. 489, and does Th. really have to go all satire on poor Amelia? Tis unconscionable, I say.
- Six pages later, I retract my words. If only Thackeray could leave Mrs. Mango out--I suspect he can't help himself, it's too much.
- This Lord Steyne, he's really something. We should update the VF article here. Surely some scholar compared him to De Sade. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies: First, a fine Christmas to you and yours. I've been distracted this week by moving a family member into our home for the nest year or so, a very gratifying thing to do for many reasons, but time-consuming. (You probably know how much accumulated stuff family members can accumulate in their rooms). - About VF: Does that Oxford edition have Thackeray's illustrations? They're crucial to the story in some places, especially in one instance near the end, where the picture adds a detail to the prose. I'm deeply gratified that you're enjoying the book. I haven't read it since the last time I taught it, which was in a previous millennium. Students simply rebelled at it, mistakenly, I think; they also rebelled at reading Elizabeth Gaskell's Cranford, a very short book that's great fun to read. - But the book (VF) does get better as it goes along. There is a scene with Becky and young Rawdon that says a lot in one line about what can go wrong between the wrong parent and the right child. Enjoy. - Meanwhile, I'm open to the next item on my medieval reading list. I read The Cloud of Unknowing and Julian of Norwich at a friend's suggestion, and also The Canon's Yeoman's Tale, which strained my Middle English quite a bit, but worth the effort - And, I almost forgot, a happy New Year! - Macspaunday (talk) 14:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Likewise! I took the opportunity to finish the book--honestly I expected a bit more fireworks; I thought Becky would be exposed, plunge a knife into Jos's heart,&c. Very enjoyable book for the most part (yes, with original illustrations) though I admit I didn't read all of Thackeray's eloquent meta-commentaries completely. We do have a Becky Sharp among Wikipedia's ranks, by the way
      I will finish this post some other time--doing this mobilely isn't pleasurable. Thanks again for the reading tip and I'll find a copy of Cranford. Happy holidays--I hope your syllabi are ready and that your classes are making. Drmies (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]