Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Acalamari (talk | contribs) at 21:53, 26 June 2008 (Reverted edits by 75.175.29.40 (talk) to last version by Ironholds). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Index of archives

Poetry

I wonder if I could draw your attention to some poetry articles I've had a hand in which could benefit from any extra attention: Adrian Henri, The Mersey Sound, Liverpool poets, The Medway Poets.

Re. RfA, wait 3 months and a lot more edits. 3000+ would be helpful. Participate in RfA, as it gives a good understanding of what is needed and also makes you think about those requirements to make your own judgement. You can contribute to AN and WP:AN/I, where you can learn about the problems admins have to consider. Vandal fighting is obviously desirable, through RCP, Newpages (where there may be nominations for speedy deletions) or in my case a long watchlist of articles, and don't forget the test templates on vandal's talk pages. There's AfD of course and non-admins can close (near-)unanimous "keeps", as well as the other deletion discussions. Otherwise I suggest you just explore different project spaces and find what you enjoy doing.

Tyrenius 05:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Smile!

Yanksox 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Tyrenius told me a bit about you, and you should realize that there is joy to Wiki. Don't let a few things let you down. Remember, things always find a way to go right. If you need anything feel free to get in touch with me. Yanksox 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For working tirelessly and well on articles about poets and literary figures. Erik the Rude 13:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd treat you to a choice selection of cream cakes, chocolate eclairs, scones, clotted cream, fruit cake with glaice cherries, and a bottle of claret, but we're not on the same continent. Too bad! Erik the Rude 13:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI

FYI Tyrenius 00:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Goldom's RFA thanks

Thank you for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (53/2/1). I've spent the day trying out the new tools, and trying not to mess things up too badly :). I was quite thrilled with all the support, both from the people I see around every day, as well as many users who I didn't know from before, yet wrote such wonderful things about me. I look forward to helping to serve all of you, and the project. Let me know if there's anything I can help you with. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Another barnstar!

Minor Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your tireless copyediting, a barnstar for you: From one oppressed individual to another, Billy Blythe 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Carlsbad grimple at DRV

Hey, there's a bit of discussion regarding Carlsbad grimple over at WP:DRV right now, and we could use your input to clear it up if possible. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

English and British Queen Mothers

So I've apparently used up three reverts on this crazy German anon editor who wants to remove the word "heiress presumptive" because "presumtive" is a German word, but not an English word, or something. So, anyway, German anon has also used three reverts so far, but if she tries again, it'd be great if you could revert it, since I can't. I'm not sure what to do about it - she seems completely immune to reason. And what kind of person decides to edit an article on a specific concern about English usage while admitting that she does not actually speak English well? The whole thing is totally bizarre and incomprehensible to me. john k 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Poetlister. I wanted to thank you with flowers (well, flower) for taking the time to participate in my RfA, which was successful. I'm very grateful for your gracious support (and even more so to SlimVirgin for vouching for me!). I assure you I'll continue to serve the project to the very best of my ability and strive to use the admin tools in a wise and fair manner. Please do let me know if I can be of assistance and especially if you spot me making an error in future. Many thanks once again. Yours, Rockpocket 08:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Zachariah

Well thank goodness that was caught before the article got deleted. I have been troubled of late by the number of absolutely awful articles on 'slam poets' etc. (regarding which I must agree with Harold Bloom — the 'death of art'), so I was hunting for more nonsense, since every pseudo-intellectual egotistical twit who ever cornered someone in a grimy pub with his verbal excrement seems to want to write an article about himself on Misplaced Pages. Because my patience is low, I didn't bother checking the edit history, and just assumed the worst — which was an oversight.

My apologies for any inconvenience/upset caused.The Crying Orc 18:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carlsbad grimple (2nd nomination)

This is back up for discussion; since you were integral to the original discussion, having apparent evidence of seeing it across the pond, would you like to comment further? -- nae'blis 21:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Category:Date of birth missing

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of birthdays, date of birth should generally not be added to the biographies of living non-public or semi-public figures. So far, that policy has been interpreted fairly strictly with a pretty high bar being set for the definition of "public figures" who are assumed to have given up their rights to privacy.

By the same token, we should not be adding Category:Date of birth missing to articles unless we have made the case that the person meets the "public figures" threshold. Otherwise, we're just baiting new users into adding content even though the community has already said that we shouldn't include that particular data point. Category:Year of birth missing is okay but the exact date is often not. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hollo

Mr Hollo wrote in to say that, among other things, his father was almost always referred to by initials, and that he hated being referred to by his full name as he thought it pretentious. Consequently, I have reverted your modification to the article. DS 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

That is original research and therefore not quite the ticket for wiki. Tyrenius 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On further investigation, I've posted to DS. Tyrenius 01:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Queen Mothers, Queens mothers? or what?

Well, I've just done another five minutes reading (and writing) and discover that you've added some dictionary references. Good work! I have created a reference section and put them into it.

Now if the article is going to stand on its feet, you need to go back to it and actually source all the other facts. The work by Pepys, for example, needs to appear in the references as well.

And whether or not those various Queens really used the term? How do we know whether they did or not? If you haven't used inline references before, take a look at what I've done in the first paragraph. They then pop up automatically in the references section.

You might also want to add my blurb about the Dutch Queen and the African queens to the other article as they are already sourced and I created a reference section for that one as well.

As for my massive changes- nothing had been removed. It was merely hidden so that anyone who wished to edit it (by adding the appropriate references for example) had immediate access to it without searching back through the edit history to find it.

--Amandajm 14:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Messages here?

Hi,

I actually thought about putting the message here after I put it on the other page, but since you had some kind of a template up at that page, I figured that's where you wanted any messages. Won't do it again! Noroton 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

twinkle twinkle little star - what a wonderful world

well it wasn't exactly a joke. am I the only one who notice they share the same melody? 88.240.147.171 15:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

re: hello!

Thanks for calling my attention to the summary box. I honestly just overlooked it, and if I ever did notice it did not think it was of great importance. I would have otherwise put in a summary for my additions/changes. Is there some way to do that after the fact? Should I do this?

On another note, I must say your message comes off as a bit condescending. I don't know if it is a form message from some sort of template to send to supposed new users, but it is quite off-putting. I have been contributing to Misplaced Pages for quite some time but have only recently created an account. I am by no means a new user to the site. If in the future you wish to point something out to another user, you may do well to be mindful that trying too hard to not spark annoyance can sometimes do just that. -JohnDoe0007 10:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Why did you remove part of the standard reference – the editor of the book – from the citation at Brian Jones? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, first, because you hadn't corrected a typo, you'd changed the grammatical structure unnecessarily* (why do you claim to have been doing the former?). That wouldn't have been a problem, but secondly, you'd changed the referenced to a non-standard form for absolutely no reason. Yes, of course the reader can click on the link, but citations (per WP:CITE#Full citations) should include the author. They should also include more, but I hadn't got round to adding the other details. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Do you honestly think that: "Jones' first major collection, Poems (consisting of his first book, The Madman in the Reading Room and thirty-seven other poems), was published in 1966, and was successful." is good style? That last three-word phrase is leaden and bathetic. In an article on a poet that's particularly glaring. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 19:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I missed the floating bracket — sorry. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi! I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that I responded to your comments on the talk page of Seamus Heaney and re-instated my edits. I re-instated the edits because I felt that I provided adequate information with regards to Heaney identifying as being from Derry. I also wanted to let you know that both you and Derry Boi are in violation of the 3RR policy that Misplaced Pages has. It would be silly for me to block you, considering my own interest in the article, so please just consider this to be a friendly heads-up. Cheers gaillimh 22:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, Poetlister! Sorry about the confusion about 3RR and my confusing you about administrator buttons. Just to re-affirm, I would never use any extra buttons (or even overtly mention my having them, which I guess I did in a confusing way on your talk page) in an article that I was working on. I hope that despite our conflicting views that we'll be able to work towards a solution to this Heaney business and continue to make this article, and others, even better! Cheers gaillimh 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

About that Carol Ann Duffy article revert you did:

I apologize in advance as I don't really know anything about Ms. Duffy's creative output, but is it important to the article to leave the outmoded terminology "American Indian" in vs. what the better contemporary term would be, i.e. "Native American"? I'm not attacking your reversion at all, but it would strike the unknowing, casual Wikibrowser as being a bit un-politically correct to utilize that term. Perhaps maybe the term could be left in quotation marks and there could be an explanation further down that the term is being used in the article for some kind of artistic integrity/consistency. I don't know. What sayeth you? (Krushsister 02:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC))

I'm sorry you appeared to take offense at what I stated. I did admit to not being aware of this person's output, so if you, who would naturally be more of an expert than I am on this person, feel that it is necessary to use this term, then so be it. Anyway, I wasn't trying to "censor" so much as correct what appeared to me to be an outdated term to accomodate a modern text. But I understand the necessity of sometimes using those kinds of terms (even if it offends some) to preserve the overall integrity of informative text. One would have a problem talking about Joseph Conrad's The Nigger of the 'Narcissus' (which I am familiar with) otherwise. BTW, I am part Apache, so I might come across as a bit sensitive about these things. But I'm not. I was just making a correction on what read to me as text written by someone who was a non-NA, who was of a much older generation. (Krushsister 20:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC))

About Rachel Brown.

I have a question. Why have you been mistaken for RachelBrown? She has been inactive on Misplaced Pages for over a year, yet you were blocked for being a sockpuppet. Why do some users think you're a sockpuppet? Acalamari 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, no, wait, you were blocked about the time she left. Even so, why were you considered a sockpuppet? Looking at the picture on her user page, and the picture on yours, you're two completely different women. You're a more active user now, as well. Acalamari 00:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

1000 Edits.

Congratulations! Acalamari 16:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for your support. :) Acalamari 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You Made the list of Misplaced Pages's...

Pretiest users!!! Congrats! check out my page user:Kingstonjr keep it going! KingstonJr 81.97.217.3 15:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations from me, Poetlister. Welcome back. Acalamari 16:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Poetlister! (Edit conflict.) :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well - you already know I have known you to be a real person for possibly years (ie involvement with WR - dunno how long thats been) - welcome back to acknowledgement from the wiki beuracracy. Viridae 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Poetlister! @Viridae your account on WR was created 19 May 2007. @FloNight Is it acknowledged that this user was not a sockpuppet of Runcorn? --Random832 (contribs) 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

oH there you - go, nearly a year. And my originals involvement with WR was to set some misrepresentations of policy right I think. So it must have been more like 10 months. Oh well - felt like years. Viridae 16:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, and I'll think you'll like this. :) Acalamari 16:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
• Welcome back. -- Naerii 18:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Poetlister! This is great news :) - Alison 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Welcome back. (No brainer, though - you are a crat on my second favourite project). Sceptre 20:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see your editing privs restored. ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! :) krimpet✽ 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome (back). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome back! :) Enigma 04:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister is innocent

The opinions in my essay are mine alone. Poetlister agrees with the general theme, but she did not ask me to publish it, nor do I require her permission to do so.

• User:Shalom/Drafts and archives/Poetlister is innocent

Enjoy reading. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister is not innocent. The checkuser evidence was overwhelming and damning. She is being unbanned not because we have changed our mind on the original evidence; in fact, we have reviewed it and found it as convincing as ever. Rather, she is being unbanned because we believe in giving users a second chance, and because of her good work on other projects. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Bullshit - if you accept that she actually is a she - then you have accepted she is not a sockpuppet of runcorn, who is male. Which means she was never a sock and is therefore innocent of all charges. Othwerwise you are still maintaining that this is Runcorn. Viridae 00:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, no swearing, please. Be of cheer and be merry. A day of good news only deserves good words :)

I respect English Misplaced Pages Arbcom experience and discretion, as an experienced editor and sister project CU,　I learn most of sockpuppet allegations hit the target properly. I just said, discretion, including they now lifted the ban and gave Poetlister a second chance. It is really good of them! Also it is good to hear they respect Poetlister do a lot of good works with which we proudly consider her a great asset.

re: open proxies. As an English Wikiquote CU, I proactively block open proxies, and know our English Misplaced Pages colleagues do the same. So it is also good to hear that Poetlister gave her word not to edit via open proxies anymore.

And last but not least, congrats for restoring your edit right, Poetlister! --Aphaia (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Viridae seems to be claiming that Morven holds inconsistent beliefs or is presenting a logically inconsistent position, but that only follows if Morven is incapable of having beliefs different from Viridae, such as that runcorn isn't male. It looks a bit like a case of failing the Sally-Anne test. -- 71.102.174.155 (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you repeat it often enough, people will come to believe it. -- Naerii 02:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. Peter Damian (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

More info

May I suggest good faith, and hold off the arguing a bit.

(Full comment being drafted, will post soon). FT2  00:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith of all involved would lead to the conclusion that Poetlister is not a sockpuppet and checkusers are mistaken (since 1. it’s extremely unlikely that Poetlister herself would be mistaken about this and 2. people being mistaken in good faith happens all the time, including in groups).

Assuming bad faith of someone involved, on the other hand, would likely lead to the conclusion that Poetlister is lying, since that's more likely than a number of checkusers lying (though I'm not entirely clear on how many and which checkusers who have reviewed the evidence support the sockpuppet conclusion and how many and which (if any) checkusers who have reviewed the evidence disagree with that conclusion). However, I think you do have to want someone to be lying in order to get to that conclusion. 87.254.71.190 (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't prove guilt. Though it can in certain cases strongly point ot it. However disregarding the checkuser evidence, had this been a runcorn sock he has kept the pretence up for a hell of a logn time with a hell of a lot of commitment. Viridae 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed Runcorn from the list of banned users - my rationale: If there is only one person behind these accounts, then who is banned? --Random832 (contribs) 19:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, the official story is still that they were all banned because (when combined) they violated WP:SOCK so I have reverted the change to WP:BANNED.

A new chapter in the story was written when Poetlister was unbanned. The story doesnt need to make perfect sense - this is not a novel; it just needs to be what is right for the project at the time - unbanning Poetlister makes sense. John Vandenberg 00:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, but WP:BANNED is for people who are presently banned, and therefore for there to be an entry on WP:BANNED it must be acknowledged that - if the person operating the "Poetlister" account is (obviously) not banned, that there is someone else who is banned. We block people's sockpuppets without blocking them or creating a WP:BANNED listing all the time. --Random832 (contribs) 01:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This the talk page of Poetlister, which is the wrong forum for discussing your edit to WP:BANNED. I have responded to this on ANI. John Vandenberg 06:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

Long time no see...Welcome back. Modernist (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. It would seem common sense won out in the long run. Celarnor 16:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetlister, welcome back! I hope this doesn't mean your involvement in other projects will suffer!! :-( ;-) p.s. The Bell-Buoy needs some loving! hehe John Vandenberg 00:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Congrats, feels good not to be blocked huh? :D ...--Cometstyles 12:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, PL. That was quick. In this situation, I'm reminded of the Dickinson poem about truth dazzling gradually. Anyway, best wishes and happy editing, Firsfron of Ronchester 09:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Edits to my talk page

I should be grateful if you could please explain the rationale for this edit: . As I was in the middle of an appeal to ArbCom, it was rather assuming the result of that appeal. Thanks.--Poetlister (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggest you not pursue the matter, I did as I do to all banned/indefblocked editors, you just happened to be one, if you're editing rights have been restored, there is obviously nothing more to discuss. And considering you have also been holding an off-wiki grudge against me for the edit, while you clearly know you were banned (you just happened to get unblocked), discussing the matter with me is not going to get you far anywhere on this encyclopedia. I suggest you move on. — Κaiba 12:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm threats they sure are great fun, especially when uttered when not having to fear retaliation. Quite the macho :) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Day Lewis or Day-Lewis

Hi. Thanks for the mail. If his name was really Day Lewis, don't you think the article on him should be renamed, and the Day-Lewis page turned into a redirect, instead of the present vice-versa situation? That would save you from having to revert people's changes all the time. (You can answer here, I'm watching.) LarRan (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good idea, though I am not going to do it myself at present.--Poetlister (talk) 12:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ce fut en mai

This article contains text of a poem that might belong in Wikisource. If you think so, please copy it there. In general, you should keep an eye on Category:Copy to Wikisource.

Also, your talk page is getting long. Consider archiving it. Please ask if you want me to help you set up an archive page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 13:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Poetry

Why on earth did you delete me from the list of participants?--Poetlister (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

We had a project roll call and whoever didn't answer was removed. Wrad (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

My RFB

Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

James Keith Baxter

While browsing wikipedia for missing pages to write i saw it on your things to do list. Assuming he's a poet, do you mean James K. Baxter? Ironholds 12:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and (sorry, only just noticed) Louis O. Coxe? Ironholds 12:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

...And William James Linton. My apologies again. Ironholds 12:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)