User talk:Procureur2014

Welcome!

Hello, Procureur2014, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anthony Aufrere may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

letter from 13th April 1816 suggested to him numerous deletions and possible alterations to it (See Letter from Lawrence to Goethe, 13th April, 1816, in D.F.S. Scott, ''Some English

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hermann Georg Scheffauer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Challis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hermann Georg Scheffauer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Bookman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Insertion of advert

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

A user Edward321 has inserted "advert" at the top of the article, this results in the assertion "This article contains content that is written like an advertisement, etc". The same user does not actually specify what it is he considers badly written about the article, which is an affront and rather demeaning. I am based in Germany and there is no advertising on the page. I doubt if the same user is even qualified to comment on the biographical facts displayed. If the user will be more empirical it might help, what is it that he finds objectionable? How does one ask Wikipedia to look into the actions of other users who go around adding "Advert" to web pages. It constitutes almost a form of vandalism within the very idea of Wikipedia which is a great shame. 17:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Procureur2014, I will ping the user in question and see what their specific problem is with the article. LoudLizard (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward321: Hi, could you please let Procureur2014 know what they need to do to fix the "advertisement" problem with the article Hermann Georg Scheffauer. Thanks, LoudLizard (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procureur2014, please assume good faith instead of accusing me of vandalism for disagreeing with you. I used the Advert tag for lack of a better one, the article seems to not provide to balanced view of the subject. There are large amounts of namedropping, such as the unsourced claims of him knowing Stephen Phillips, G. K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Henry James, and Edmund Gosse, among many others. The tone frequently does not match Wikipedia guidelines on neutral point of view, for example "He had found not only an English protégé but his Diotima", "His truly visionary expressionist play", and "he irony of being a persecuted poet could not have escaped him". The section on the murder of his secretary and his own suicide seems written in a way to justify the actions and ignores sources that say she was his mistress. Edward321 (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward321: I replaced the advert tag with the tone tag. Advert was completely inappropriate as the article was "selling" nothing and included zero external links other than old (and free) references. You say above "I used the Advert tag for lack of a better one, the article seems to not provide to balanced view of the subject." to which I reply next time please spend a few minutes looking through Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. The "tone", "pov", and possibly even the "story" tag would all have been far more appropriate than avdert. Additionally please note that it is a best practice at WP to Avoid "drive-by" tagging. Tags should be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it, or, for simpler problems, a remark using the reason parameter as shown below; tagging editors must be willing to follow-through with substantive discussion. If you had followed this best practice, even with the erroneous advert tag, a lot of confusion, offense, and angry words would have been avoided. We try here for civility and a key way we do that is by using the Talk pages effectively. I am pinging @Procureur2014: and @LoudLizard: so they are aware of the tag change as well. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 15:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Edwards321

Edwards321, thank you now for the productive input, the advertising banner above an article that I have invested many hours of work in, felt like seeing graffiti written above something that is a scientific piece of research.

Re:"there are large amounts of namedropping, the unsourced claims of him knowing…"

I’ll add the primary source regarding Phillips, Belloc, Chesterton and James that you mention. It was Scheffauer writing regularly as the European correspondent for the San Francisco Town Talk, he wrote about all these encounters (and much more) he had in London, which frequently the editor, Bonnet paraphrased from all of his letters to him: “In the Heart of Literary London”, in: Town Talk, Vol. XIV. No. 700, Saturday, January 27, 1906, p.13. There are, of course, others.

"Scheffauer, by the way, is now an associate of London's literary celebrities, and he has written me some interesting gossip concerning them. Thus : "The other night at a New Year's reception at Edmund Gosse's I had a long talk with Henry James. Curious and edifying was it to hear him express in that same attention-and-thought- compelling style he uses in writing, his views on our American civilization, East and West. This great master has become more English than American, and is able to regard his countrymen with the clarity of a stranger's vision. I've joined an informal little club, 'The New Bohemians' ! (of all names!) which meets once a week in a tavern, 'The Prince's Head,' in the Strand. Stephen Phillips, G. K. Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc and others belong. I think our own Bohemian Club must have been like this one in old and palmy days. We have poetry and punch, art and ale. All smoke, except myself — long church-warden pipes. I do not smoke, but I manage to drink some of the ale, the stout or the bitter — poor stuff! and contribute to the entertainment. I often see Miss Alice E. Ives, a talented playwright from New York, several of whose plays are being considered by London managers. She is a great friend of Lady Cooke, a dainty, sprightly little dame with many of the charming and beautiful characteristics of Madame Recamier. She is very wealthy and is going to inaugurate a salon in her magnificent home, for the intellectual elite, etc.[...]"

To have quoted this in the Wiki article is unnecessary, but clearly there are some readers like yourself who just simply don't believe it, who read a short sentence and think that it is only "namedropping". Perhaps you wish to pursue the theory that when he wrote this as a European correspondent, he was still "namedropping" for the San Francisco elite? Scheffauer was a poet, Stephen Phillips also a poet, they were both members of the New Bohemian Club and as an editor of The Poetry Review, Phillips even published later (1913) some of Scheffauer’s poetry as well as from his wife. Phillips' personal engagement for Scheffauer was even acknowledged back in America. (See San Francisco Call, Volume 114, Number 30, 30 June 1913) to cite this in the Wiki article as proof that he knew him, strikes me as superfluous.

Re: Belloc and Chesterton, I thought it would be of interest to know that Belloc had been to California and had an American wife, I doubt that there were many Californians in London at the time, and this would have helped in striking up any contact. In some of Belloc’s poems, e.g. “Ballade of the Heresiarchs” I’m actually quite sure there is a reference to Scheffauer, but again, this would be too detailed for a Wiki article to go into an analysis of individual poems. So too the theory that Scheffauer crops up in one of Chesterton’s novels as an "American journalist", which I believe he did. Besides, together with his friend Thomas Mann, Scheffauer later published German translations of works by Belloc and Chesterton in the RdW. I might also add, that there is a book, Debates and differences. (Amsterdam, 1929) published posthumously, that documents his conversations with these literary figures (as well as H. G. Wells and John Galsworthy- the last two names I'm afraid that I don’t mention/drop in the Wiki article.) Perhaps I should "drop" their names too?

Re: "among many others" can you be specific, which authors, Oh I've now added the German passages where he mentions some authors. You can check the original if you wish so that you can see that I'm not "name dropping".

Re: "use of Diotima"

Scheffauer often used Greek, Norse and Roman mythological names to characterise his relationships with those he was very close to. Both he and George Sterling referred to Ambrose Bierce as the ‘Titan’ (See McWilliams, Life of Ambrose Bierce,1924, p.205), he also used to call Bierce ‘Thor’ (See Bierce and the Poe Hoax, 1934, p.5) and I’m aware of him also calling Bierce “the literary Atlas”. He also refers to Ernst Haeckel in some of the inscriptions to his books as ‘Titan’ “Titan, thou bringst us light and fire, …etc.”. His ‘Diotima’, like the German romantic poet Holderlin, is probably the same “maid” that he already longs for in his poem “The Looms of Life”(written in February, 1906). She is the women (as poet) he forever loved and eventually married, he described her passionately in ”The Baiting of Poe “, that I have now given the source from the: Overland Monthly and Out West Magazine, Vol. LIII-Second Series January-June 1909 (06-01-1909), p.191. Even Mencken admired her poetry in his correspondence with George Sterling. In his last letter to his wife, a few days before the tragedy, he wrote to her: „Ich liebe Dich mit einer Liebe, die sich über alles erhebt — ich küsse Deine lieben Lippen und die unseres Kindes.“[I love you with a love that soars above everything- I kiss your lovely lips and those of our child ]„Scheffauer’s Abschiedsbrief“, in: Hamburger Anzeiger (13 Oct 1927), p. 10.

Re: "The section on the murder of his secretary and his own suicide seems written in a way to justify the actions and ignores sources that say she was his mistress."

These letters were published presumably with Ethel’s permission, “to scotch the rumours”-these are the words I use in the Wiki article- that were primarily being spun by the Associated Press) of there being some liaison with his secretary and that this was a crime passionnel. His secretary, Katherina von Meyer, who was only 27 years old, was the second daughter of the Russian General, she appears to have only been with him for a very short time, as “Lonny”, the pet-name of Scheffauer’s former secretary, had only left him at the “end of the month” (September? 1927) Ethel refers to her departure in her last letter to him (Lonny had also written to Ethel). I’m not yet sure who “Lonny” is, but it could very well be Elisabeth Hauptmann (1897-1973), the former secretary of his who left him so as to work for the German dramatist Bertolt Brecht***. All the German newspaper reports I have sifted through were however quite sober and empirical, and they say quite explicitly that the police could not yet find a motive, that they did not have a motive. Just why the American press (and British) chose to go down this route is not yet clear. Theodore Dreiser also thought that the motif was jealousy and that it was a crime of passion. According to some reports he preposterously shot his secretary, etc., some newspaper reports were saying that he killed his wife, etc. Oh, and the “Abschiedsbrief” is technically not “a suicide note”, it was found in his work study desk later, written to his wife, but had never been sent, as there is no mention of any intention to kill himself, it was written only a few days before the tragedy, but it does provide an insight (the best we have) into his disordered state of mind at the time. The suicide and the mis-reporting of it could take up many pages and citations.

In the article I have given a brief indication and hinted at what is probably the truth, strange that you should think it is in part a “justification”? The previous night he was with a close friend, who indeed gave an account to the Berliner newspaper that he seemed rather anxious and distraught, there is also a comment from his personal doctor, as well as some reports that he had an appointment with a psychiatrist the same day as his suicide! To say that the article “ignores sources that say she was his mistress” is not true, I have pointed out that his last correspondence was published so as to “scotch these rumors”, clearly they have persisted, or do you know of any original sources other than Dreiser and the AP? I have even quoted a snippet of Thomas Mann’s explanation at the PEN memorial service in Berlin, who had no idea at the depth or measure of his torment and the daemons that accompanied him (“daemons” is actually the phrase that his wife uses, who, incidentally, was confident that he would get over this “depression”.) My own pet theory is that his mental derangement (schizophrenia) was inherited from the side of his great grand-mother, but this is so speculative that I have not raised it in the Wiki article.

Re: You find the sentiment “His truly visionary expressionist play”, inadmissible.

I stand by that. Tell me, how many plays predicted the First World War and its bloodletting and were written and finished in 1913? How many plays laid the blame squarely at the feet of the armament industry in an expressionist form, in the sense of being devoid of blaming a definite nation? “The Hollow Head of Mars” does precisely that. I think it is one of the greatest dramatic works he wrote, moreover the character of the 'Mountebank', is clearly presented as a Mephistophelean figure (and the influence of Goethe is palpable), whispering affectionately into the ear of ‘The Minister of War’, and drinking every drop of blood in a beaker and toasting “To Liberty”. It is a character that is deliriously happy at the increasing numbers of soldier recruits (in the successive phases of recruiting that are always joining the ever growing ranks of the dead to reflect the seasons) that join him, their blood as he says: gleefully “manure for the victory of lilies”.

Although Scheffauer translated the expressionist play of George Kaiser ‘Gas’, and popularized his writings, his very own contribution within this genre, of writing a macabre play on the First World War as a protégé of Bierce, has yet to be acknowledged. I think that given Thomas Mann’s admiration of Karl Kraus, and his later friendship with Scheffauer (besides their common love of Nietzsche, Wagner, etc.) this friendship and reciprocal admiration was always self explanatory. If you find the description “expressionistic” strange, I should say that Scheffauer’s own article on the art movement itself, with his own definitions and historical examples, is to be found in “The Essence of Expressionism”, pp.1-41, it is the first essay in his The New Vision in the German Arts (1924)

Re: "the irony of being a persecuted poet could not have escaped him" He was a persecuted American poet! This is simply suggesting that like Heinrich Heine, he was living and would eventually die in exile? Scheffauer’s translation of Heine’s Atta Troll provides this analogy. I don’t see what the problem is. Are you saying that Heine was not a persecuted poet? However, we know that he wanted to return to America, and even his friend Mencken (who also thought he had been unjustly persecuted because of what he had written about President Wilson) suggested that he should do so- but this clearly would have been unwise with the indictment hanging over him. Just look at the fate of the other American ‘traitor’ poet Ezra Pound? He must have read Heine already back in San Francisco, as he had already compared Ambrose Bierce’s own satire and specifically his poem ‘The Invocation” from Shapes of Clay(1904) with Heine’s own satire:

“… or whether it lightens and laughs like the flashing satire and wit of that other, yet older, modern Aristophanes, the satiric-lyric poet Heine.”

[Scheffauer’s Review of] “Shapes of Clay”, in: Sunset: The Magazine of the Pacific and of All the Far West, Vol. XIII (June, 1904),p.186.]

I have already provided 42 (now 52) references in the Wiki article. I thought that I'd better start providing the exact German citations in case the "tone" of my own translations is considered to be suspect. It is standard practice in biographical entries (e.g. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography or other biographical Lexica) not to burden the reader with hundreds of footnotes. To add to the selected works lists of his short stories, or all of the articles he ever wrote would be counter-productive. He was also a journalist and a correspondent. In the article I have also added links to places in America (Bancroft, California and New York PL) where his MSS and correspondence is held, in the hope that this might encourage further research. As far as I know nobody is actually writing on Scheffauer in America right now, there are probably one or two in Europe. BTW, my other two major biographical entries are Anthony Aufrere & John James Tayler. The same attention to detail and biographical accuracy is given in these two wiki entries, which are based on some original research (already published!). This was my personal contribution to the Wikipedia project that is often wrongly derided in academic circles for its alleged inaccuracy, which, of course, I always defend. It is for this reason that I find your charges of inaccuracy or bias, seriously unfounded.

- - I've just checked Jan Knopf's, Bertolt Brecht - Lebenskunst in finsteren Zeiten: Biografie (Carl Hansa Verlag, 2012) and it appears that Elisabeth Hauptmann met Brecht at a party in 1924 and then became his lover, and it was in January 1925 she left Scheffauer, so she is not the "Lonny" from October 1927.

Procureur2014 (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I actually haven't read all of your response, but would like to comment that this is a bit of a "wall of text", as we call it, which is best avoided. If you would like Edwards321 to read this, you need to ping him using the reply to template as follows: {{reply to|Username}} Message text.
LoudLizard (talk) 21:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a "wall of text", as we call it I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the "we". I merely responded in full to the criticisms of Edwards321, perchance that this is his specialist field, and that he may be sitting on unpublished MSS or had access to some Californian archives that I haven't consulted. For his information I have probably transcribed close to a hundred of Scheffauer's unpublished letters, but he doubts the veracity of some of my comments here (feels that I have "ignored" some aspects!!! WTF) in the Wiki article. Good for him, he's a sceptic! I rather doubt it, but I hope that he will now reconsider "shooting from the hip" and have demonstrated to him that what he considers "namedropping" is in fact (and can be) empirically substantiated. A "wall of text" sure I guess that I have written hundreds of pages elsewhere, its only the response to a few points here where I have added "Re", no I don't look upon it as a wall, simply as a few bricks. Procureur2014 (talk) 21:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By we, I mean the Wikipedia community and I was referring to the fact that it is 2359 words long! I don't really want to get involved with this, I just wanted to help you to contact him if that was your intention. Putting "Re" will not notify him through Wikipedia. LoudLizard (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two members of the so called "Wikipedia community" have, like cyber graffiti artists, stuck an advert banner above my work and now a "tone" banner. Should I be grateful? Procureur2014 (talk) 22:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

food for thought

Perhaps the "tone" of the article before any of my additions and corrections should be looked at, and the question asked does Wikipedia really wish to return to this "tone" again? For example, just a very small point, what sort of encyclopaedic "tone" is it that misleads by stating the wrong date of his birth by 2 years? 1878 ouch. The fact that I corrected this is clearly of no consequence whatsoever as the "tone" is wrong? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hermann_Georg_Scheffauer&diff=685032447&oldid=679884101 Procureur2014 (talk) 17:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procureur2014: Facts are facts -- if they are in error and can be corrected with sources to support the change then that MUST be done per WP:V. But facts and tone are completely separate issues. Just because you fix a fact does not change any issues of tone. Frankly I do not know if the tone is good or bad, this is not an area that I write about. Instead of getting all mad about someone being critical of your work, try using the talk page to get agreement on the best way to say something in encyclopedic fashion. Start by asking for a single example sentence of concern, insist that whatever those concerns are are spelled out, try to see what the other person sees (walk a mile in another man's moccasins) and then use the talk page to see if agreement can be reached on rewording that single sentence, ask for (and listen to) any suggestions.

If that works for one sentence, then take a whole paragraph and do the same. Paste the paragraph into a talk page section, ask for input, listen to the reply, and then propose a rewrite if you can. It is a slow process but it is the WP way to build consensus and not just do whatever we personally think is best. Who knows, if you approach this professionally you might find the problem is much smaller than all this unhappy noise warrants.

BTW, these discussions as described above should be on the ARTICLE's talk page, not here. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 22:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hermann Georg Scheffauer

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hermann Georg Scheffauer you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Procureur2014 -- Procureur2014 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using sources[edit] Policy shortcut: WP:STICKTOSOURCE Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources.

Clearly when the source material is in a different language the translation of its meaning may appear to somebody who is not familiar with that language or who does not fully understand the historical context somewhat strange.

"The section on the murder of his secretary and his own suicide seems written in a way to justify the actions and ignores sources that say she was his mistress."

The reader Edward321 above, speaks so certainly of Scheffauer's "Mistress", however he does not divulge the source (or sources) of his claim! I would suggest it is picked up or "trolled" from the Associated Press of the time. It is important to grasp the fact that all of the AP reports in October 1927 were themselves based on the original German sources (which I have closely read and a few from Berlin and Hamburg are cited as historical sources in the article)) and yet they were very far from trashing the reputation of the Russian General's daughter. The suggestion that she was his 'mistress', actually goes beyond the sources themselves. How does one convince a non-German speaker that the "mistress" meme was only bad journalism of the time (the yellow press, gutter press, reptile press standard of approach, of which we are all familiar with today), and that his insistence of it not being considered in the article, is a rather embarassing approach to take of Wikipedia, which cannot stoop to the trash level of Hello or gossip magazine reportage. Procureur2014 (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procureur2014 (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procureur2014, I wanted to let you know that you are not supposed to review your own GA nomination, and that the fact that you mistakenly did this prevents anyone else from reviewing it. Consequently, I am having the review page deleted, so that potential reviewers can select the article going forward. You will definitely want to read the GA nomination and reviewer instructions when you get the chance, to understand how the process is supposed to work. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hermann Georg Scheffauer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theobald Mathew. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Hermann Georg Scheffauer

The article Hermann Georg Scheffauer you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Hermann Georg Scheffauer for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Procureur2014 -- Procureur2014 (talk) 05:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eugene Stratton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ulysses. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Procureur2014. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello, I'm Everymorning. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Paul Joseph Watson, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Everymorning (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procureur2014 (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Hi, I have no idea what citation was given? I'm sure it came from a reliable source. A Google search is highly recommended after blue-inking something and before any use of the scissors! I think it must have been something to do with his idea that 'conservatism was the new punk', an outrageous but fascinating sociological claim, and the fact the former English(or Welsh?) singer of the now infamous English punk band The Sex Pistols, Johnny Rotten, aka Anarchy in the Uk, etc. had said something very similar about Trump![reply]

August2017

Procureur2014 (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC) =I'm just editing the article again, attending to the 7 or 8 "Citation needed" additions.[reply]

September2017

Procureur2014 (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)Just moved some text from here to the actual talk page of HGS, where it is supposed to be read![reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Procureur2014. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Procureur2014. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Your addition to Valentine Dyall has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anthony Ludovici, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Henry Wace. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Gilchrist (zoologist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huxley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:The Freethinker.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:The Freethinker.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Aveling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexander Mackenzie.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Aveling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Black.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Aveling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Lister.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:The Freethinker 1883 png.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:The Freethinker 1883 png.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hi Procureur2014! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Edward Aveling that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Sumanuil. 21:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you could be more specific it would help, there have been literally hundreds of edits on this page. Which one are you exactly referring to? Procureur2014 (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several, but this one in particular is not minor: Special:Diff/1111326670 Sumanuil. 20:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

20 September 2022 - Use of Edit summary

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Spintendo 03:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right now sitting in a car using a mobile phone,pressing a tab that says published.just forgot a "r" in a word, went back. I presume that is "minor"? Thanks for advice. Procureur2014 (talk) 10:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My issue was not with minor edits. That was the issue my colleague Sumanuil was discussing with you in the entry above this one. My issue was with your almost total non-use of edit summaries. It is good practice to always provide meaningful summaries for every edit, especially when adding or deleting large amounts of text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit. In appropriate circumstances, a summary can be quite brief ("ce" and "rvv" for example).

Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. Edits that do not have an edit summary are more likely to be reverted incorrectly, because it may not be obvious what the purpose of the edit was. When a major edit (e.g., addition or deletion of a substantial amount of article text, or a substantial rewrite) doesn't have an edit summary, some busy editors might not assume good faith and revert the change without evaluating it properly. Providing an edit summary helps prevent that kind of error.

As Sumanuil stated above, summaries are less important for minor changes (which means generally unchallengeable changes, such as spelling or grammar corrections), but a brief note like "fixed spelling" is helpful even then.

To avoid accidentally leaving edit summaries blank, registered editors can select "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" on the Editing tab of the user preferences. Thank you in advance for your help in this matter. Cheers! Spintendo 16:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edward Aveling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christopher Heath.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited George Julian Harney, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Frost.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Claus von Stauffenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberation.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ronald Scobie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page EAM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited London Dialectical Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Clark.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]