User talk:Poetlister

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry about the family business ;) - jowfair 7 august 2005

Cool, i've always wanted a Hillman Imp Cokehabit 01:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Welcome

You're welcome! (In the other sense of welcome...) If you need anything, let me know! -- Essjay · Talk 01:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

So after this excellent family car connection, what do you drive? Cokehabit 00:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I dont drive either, i'm epileptic so I get everyone to drive me around. It does of course mean that I can drink whenever I go out ;) Cokehabit 17:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I'm just browsing through the Wikipedians in England category and notice you are not in a 'county category', probably because the category hasn't been created for it yet. Would you like [[Category:Wikipedians in Hertfordshire]] created? Alf ^melmac 19:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, A lot of people use Wikipedians in UK category, that cat is going out of style though as far as I remember from the notice on its page. Proportion, not a clue, honestly. The more aware UK users become, the more likely they have themselves in a county cat. I suggest it to people who write on local articles that I watch, I know at least two others who do the same. Snowball effect I hope. Alf ^melmac 10:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, done and added to your user page. Soon have some 'neighbours' I'm sure. Alf ^melmac 10:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Thanks for your poetic contributions.

I thought I would just mention that I'm not quite so keen on linking dates. Dates of birth/death are good, since it can be useful to look at what links to 1960 to get anniversaries etc. Otherwise, linking a date means something quite widely significant about tying the event to the year ...

Charles Matthews 10:54, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User page vandalism

No problem on revert the vandalism. I have you watched now, but actually I found it using CryptoDerk's Vandal Fighter. I highly recommend it if you plan to get into RC Patrol. I hope you are enjoying the site. See you around. Psy guy ^(talk) 23:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello again

I don't mind about the Palgrave names; but, to explain, I have a policy of creating redirects like J. Milton as I go. In the longer term it adds to the site to have redirects, and these sometimes pick up red links on other pages that otherwise would still be there. Charles Matthews 13:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette

Btw. This is worth reading: Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes:

• Deleting your User Talk page or removing text from your User Talk page. Your User Talk page is the best way others have of communicating with you. It's OK to clean up or archive old content, but please be careful before removing content from your User Talk page; it may look as though you're trying to hide criticism.

This unsigned comment is from User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters; he complains that I removed some vandalism he did to this page. - Poetlister 22:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

(Incidentally, compare Lulu's friend SlimVirgin, who did precisely what Lulu complains of, but Lulu didn't put this sort of nonsense on her page! - Poetlister 12:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] List of Jewish jurists -- Request for mediation

I've added List of Jewish jurists to the list of requests for mediation. Please take a look and make any comments that you wish. Thanks. --Nlu 16:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I have left a note on Rachel's talk page about this and suggested mediation be cancelled. Arniep 23:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Rachel has decided to go ahead with the mediation as Lulu has continued to make unfounded accusations on his talkpage. I'd appreciate if you could take a look at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:LGBT_criminals, personally I think this category just shouldn't exist as gay people have lived in diverse eras and countries with different laws so it is pretty meaningless, and also Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Wealthy_fictional_characters which is pretty stupid as we can never list all wealthy characters in all books, films etc. and as Rachel pointed out, wealth is relative. Arniep 13:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note, my edit summary regarding "obstructionist" and "WP:POINT" was directed at Lulu, not you. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign to delete Jewish categories

please vote here Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Sub-Categories_of_Jewish_people. Arniep 13:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote. Arniep 03:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Another User:StabRule (what a nice name) has decided to nominate a huge amount of Jewish American lists, any votes of comments would be appreciated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_26#List_of_Jewish_American_scientists. Arniep 22:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Mediation

Please direct all inquiries to our chair, Redwolf24. Judging from the edit summary, I believe that Redwolf24 was under the impression that the case had been resolved already. I forwarded your email to him and I see you've left him a note as well; he should respond to you soon. Thanks for your understanding. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Redwolf24 has replied to you by now? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll remind him to respond to you. He's pretty busy and said he would get back to you soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please direct your attention to Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#List_of_Jewish_jurists and make a response there. Thanks very much! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Max Born

I've left a note on the talk page for Antidote. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society

Dear Poetlister don't worry it will be solved. I asked a very good admin whom I trust. It will be solved. I would like to thank you for letting me know. By the way if you're the one from picture I find you cute. Bonaparte talk 14:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am you know :). By the way how come that you like so much poetry? Bonaparte talk 20:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Reverted to last (anon) version to remove change by Antidote - why don't Jewish members of acadamies of science count as Jewish?

They do. The list is just extraneous as all it contains is other lists. Antidote 20:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Please place your request for unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Homey 16:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:RachelBrown/List of Jewish juriststemp

Thanks for the message, but I'm removing the category again. I don't want to and don't have time to find out the background to this, but while the page is in userspace it should not be in an articlespace category. If/when the page is moved back to the main namespace, then by all means put it back in the category, but until then please don't. I'm sure this is policy, but I've not found a reference to it yet. I'll post again here when I do. Thryduulf 17:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found the reference now: See Wikipedia:Categorization#User namespace - "If you copy an article to your user namespace (for example, as a temporary draft or in response to an edit war) you should decategorize it." Thryduulf 17:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

You should first ask the person who moved it why they did it. It looks like it was SlimVirgin. If that doens't get you any reasonable explanation then ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves. To move a page just click the 'move' tab at the top of the page (see m:Help:Moving a page for help), I would do it but I don't want to step into the middle of something I have no knowledge of. I'm going to be offline in a few minutes and all day tomorrow (UK time) so I haven't got the time to investigate further unfortunately. You should also ask about why it was moved on the article's talk page (it stays on people's watchlists when a page is moved so people should notice). Thryduulf 23:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

See the discussion on WP:VPA about this. Thryduulf 23:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Poetlister, I was just implementing the simple rule that Thryduulf also referred to: there is a strict separation between the User namespace and the main (encyclopedia) namespace. The category "Lists of Jews" belongs to the main namespace, so there should not be user subpages in it. As long as the page is in its current location, it should not have the category on it. I'm not involved in the page move, and I'm not prepared to say anything about the desirability of this article in the encyclopedia. As for why the page was moved to user space: I see that SlimVirgin has answered that question at WP:VPA#User:RachelBrown/List of Jewish juriststemp. Eugene van der Pijll 11:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I do understand the issue: User space articles should not be categorized into namespace categories.

Please note that you have now reverted this page 4 times in 27 hours. That is very close to the WP:3RR limit, and you may be blocked the next time you insert the category. Not by me, 'cause I'll be away from wikipedia for a day, but another admin might. Eugene van der Pijll 13:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetlister, you have no right to edit the subspace of a user who has left. Furthermore, this draft was a POV fork of List of Jewish jurists. If you want to argue for changes to that page, you should go to the talk page. What do you see as the problem with List of Jewish jurists that this draft page would solve? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Poetlister, you have violated 3RR at User:RachelBrown/List of Jewish juriststemp. I'm leaving this warning because I don't know whether you've been warned about it before. If you violate it again, you may be reported and blocked from editing. Please review Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop leaving personal attacks on my talk page. I had almost no interaction with RachelBrown. As for your reverts, it makes no difference which version you revert to. Undoing another editor's work more than three times in 24 hours is a violation of 3RR, even if you revert to a different version each time. Read the policy. You should either say what your problem is with List of Jewish jurists on its talk page and reach a compromise with the other editors on the page, or leave well alone. What you may not do is create POV forks, edit other people's user subspace, or edit war to have draft articles retained in categories. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Hi you may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Contribution table, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/User comments, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting. I would appreciate your endorsement of the rfc at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary. Thanks Arniep 16:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, getting articles locked or nominating them for deletion if they don't get their own way is a regular activity of this user. If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Antidote/Voting you'll see that was the first page where the user began to use multiple voting to try and force their own viewpoint, voting 6 times in total. The renominated it in November then requested a deletion review when it was not deleted. Arniep 16:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Hi, Poetlister. We seem to have a common "friend," and I thought you might want to know that I've begun an RfAr against her: [1]. Marsden 03:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail you? How?

Hi. I don't believe we have talked before. I am happy to write you an e-mail if you could tell me your e-mail address and an idea what it is about. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope. How do you do that? I don't enter my e-mail address in here so I don't think it'd work for me anyway. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 20:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not a sock puppet

I think that we can be confident of this. I hope that this misunderstanding is reverted shortly. Certainly an indefinite ban for a "suspected" sock puppet is somewhat over the top. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 22:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether Poetlister is a sockpuppet of RachelBrown or not, but I've not seen any discussion about it - please can someone link to the evidence. Thryduulf 01:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I too am puzzled by this. Poetlister, you can mail me from my User Page. Charles Matthews 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Its on the Admin notice board, although to date there is ZERO evidence that they are the same person. No ArbCom, nothing. Extraordinarily suspicious, especially given the circumstances of the block. Would be a questionable decision at the best of times, but when a dispute is in progress, it adds even greater weight. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And of course, even if they were, given that User:RachelBrown isn't banned, it seems absurd that a sock puppet of a valid account might be banned. If RachelBrown was an indefinitely blocked user, well, fair enough. If RachelBrown was User:Willy On Wheels for example, sure, then ban sock puppets. But not because of what? Because they voted on the same AFDs 5 times? Even if it were true, it didn't make any difference to anything, so a ban full stop is excessive. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, let's assume good faith, all round: there may be a big query, and the alleged sockpuppetry may also be mistaken. I'm not rushing to any conclusions. Charles Matthews 11:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should assume good faith. I assume that Kat has evidence to substantiate her accusation and can provide it here. Until she does though, I don't see why I shouldn't be assuming good faith on Poetlister's part. It's not actually a policy of Wikipedia that I know of that AGF is suspended when an admin points the finger at an editor. -- Grace Note.

That's interesting circular logic there. So a Wikipedian admin who bans someone due to suspicion in clear violation of WP:AGF we are expected to assume good faith that their absence of good faith was reasonable? I am sorry, but that's just going around in circles. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is, which is why I've asked Mindspillage (or any of the other admins) who are attacking Poetlister to present evidence here. I'm not surprised they haven't. The administrapo prefers not to explain itself to the hoi polloi in cases like this. An admin has decided Poetlister is to be attacked and that's that. Very disappointing that Wikipedia works this way but that's how it is. -- Grace Note.

I should point out to Zordrac also that using a sockpuppet to give the impression of greater support for your position than actually exists is frowned on, and this wouldn't be the first user ID blocked for it. Getting a meatpuppet to vote for your side is not though, curiously enough, even if they show no understanding or particular interest in the issue at hand. -- Grace Note.

If proven, there would need to be an Arbitration Committee decision as to the incident. If one exists, then it should be presented for us to look at. If it was proven through ArbCom that they were a sock puppet, and, furthermore, that the violation was sufficiently significant to warrant an indefinite ban, then there would be no problem. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, there doesn't need to be an arbcom decision. If Mindspillage presents reasonable evidence here, you can decide for yourself. Mindspillage is an editor in good faith. Also, I am sure that if she has made a mistake or has insufficient evidence for it, she'll undo the block. From what I can see, Poetlister wasn't actually doing anything wrong, but some people really don't like socks and spend more time harassing them than they do actually editing the encyclopaedia. -- Grace Note.

I have heard from Poetlister offline; who may well leave WP as a result of this. I would need to be convinced that an infinite block was on a sound footing. Charles Matthews 11:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There were several IP matches in very close temporal proximity between Poetlister and the other involved usernames, on several distinct occasions; the evidence, while I cannot disclose much detail, is strong enough that I am not convinced to undo the block. It seems many other users were contacted by Poetlister (or Rachel Brown, or whichever user/users are involved) but not myself -- my email address is in the clear both on my user page and on the arbcom page, and I don't bite; if you're reading, please email. I currently have a fair bit of evidence that suggests they are socks (which in itself isn't wrong, but using them to stack a debate is) and no evidence or correspondence to suggest otherwise. Blocks aren't permanent things: I hope I have not placed this one in error and will apologize if I have done so, but I need to be informed of that first. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reviewed the evidence in this case, and agree with the conclusion reached by Mindspillage. Either all of these editors are the same person, or several people all of whom share the same workplace, residence, and (apparently) a single computer. There is one point in the log where in the course of nine minutes three distinct accounts edited from the same IP, and multiple instances of two distinct accounts editing from the same IP within the space of two to five minutes. We've only heard one flatmate suggested; am I to believe that there are three (or more) people all sharing the same workplace and residence, the same obsession with the same topic, and who carefully coordinate their edits so as never to interleave them? No, the most probable conclusion is that this is a single person. Any other conclusion multiplies entities unnecessarily. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

People visit one another's houses, Kelly. You know, when they have friends. -- Grace Note.

I considered that possibility, but don't think it's very likely. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that Kelly Martin is an inappropriate person to conduct an investigation as she is not neutral. See here: User_talk:Kelly_Martin#User-check_request. Or, to put it simply, in effect it was Kelly Martin who did the block - purely ordering User:Mindspillage to do so. I think that it is safe to say that Mindspiller did nothing wrong, as she was just following orders. Whether Kelly Martin did anything wrong is another matter. Certainly, she should have investigated things a bit more thoroughly before making the order. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are strongly cautioned not to assume bad faith like this. I did not "order" Mindspillage to do anything; I don't have the authority to do so, and Mindspillage would simply ignore me if I tried to order her to do anything. I did not originally act on SlimVirgin's request (being otherwise occupied), nor did I review the evidence involved until Mindspillage asked me to. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Threats are bad, m'kay? Ta. Please don't threaten me again. See WP:AGF to note that criticising someone for not assuming good faith (i.e. not asking a user for reasons why their IP might be similar to someone else) is not a violation of AGF. Your "caution" is unwarranted. Please do not threaten me again. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unblocking

Somone unblock Poetlister. I don't agree with the false accusations that have been made and with this sharade. Bonaparte talk 08:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be prepared to unblock Poetlister, on my own initiative. I would however like to see what the principals in this affair have to say on that, first. Charles Matthews 09:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Please unblock. I don't agree that someone should be blocked without any ArbCom resolution first. This was too zealous done. Unblock and let Poetlister to defend herself. --Bonaparte talk 12:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poetry Project

Glad to see you back. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry has recently been flagged as inactive. Perhaps you'd consider joining it? — Stumps 13:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply ... is there any sort of 'to do' list that you have for poetry, that others could help with? — Stumps 19:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hello,

Thank you for the correction to the Richard Wilbur article. I was so focused on the placement of birthplace that I missed the 'was' omission. Be healthy. Michael David 13:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Just livened up your page a bit! Arniep 01:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello :)

I've been going around places and looking for relatively new users. I can't believe there are some users I've never seen! Welcome and hello :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 03:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to second this. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 08:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Right back at you :) — Ilyanep (Talk) 22:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Turkish literature peer review

Hello. I've noticed that you have an interest in literature (specifically, poetry), and that is why I am leaving you a message. I have recently entirely rewritten the Turkish literature article with a view to getting it up to Featured Article status, and have placed the article up for peer review. If you could possibly take the time to look at and review the article, I would greatly appreciate it. If not, thank you for taking the time to read this message. Saposcat 09:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to have a look at the article; I greatly appreciate it (especially as it is outside your area—I'm really just looking for a general critical eye from someone who knows literature, of whatever variety, and how a literature article could/should be laid out). Also, I have placed the article up, as a self-nomination, on Wikipedia's good articles section. Thanks again for agreeing to take a look. Saposcat 12:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism and barnstars

I'm glad you appreciated the barnstar, but I didn't give it to you. My account was used by someone else, and you can blame Mozilla for that. I do, however think that you are deserving of a barnstar anyway because of your numerous edits to literary topics. So I shall award you one:

The Original Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For numerous edits to articles on English poets. Brian G. Crawford 08:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selig Brodetsky

Hi there. I've only just seen the article you wrote about Selig Brodetsky. I never met him as he died before I was born, but he was my grandfather, so a huge thanks for writing about him. [[User talk:Brodders|Talk to me]] 21:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so quickly. I don't think I've ever met David, although I knew his grandfather (?) Leon, and his uncle (?) Jonathan (the chess player). Although I've not seen them for many years. I'm afraid that I failed to inherit Selig's academic genes, but I enjoy reading about his life. [[User talk:Brodders|Talk to me]] 22:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a couple of questions

So I've just joined the WikiProject:Poetry, and I am in the beginning steps of starting a Poetry portal. I see that you are a supporter of poetry, so if you support the creation of such a portal, please vote for it here: [2]. Also, for articles about particular poems, is it Wikipedia policy to have a copy of the poem within the article, or is it considered better to have a link to Wikisource? Thanks alot. Adambiswanger1 03:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks so much for coming to my defense at my RfC. I'm rather soured on Wikipedia, and I doubt that I'll contribute further. I definitely won't contribute anything under my real name. You are really quite adorable, a veritable English Rose. I've written sonnets to lesser beauties. If you'd like to contact me, you may do so at brian DOT g DOT crawford DOT 96 AT alum DOT dartmouth DOT org. It's my school alumni account. I attended Dartmouth College You intrigue me, and I'd love to learn more about you. I'd love to have a British e-mail friend. I wish you the best with your endeavours on Wikipedia. Cheers! Brian G. Crawford 04:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Congratulations, and good luck! Stanfordandson 12:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

E-mail activated. Stanfordandson 17:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You've been nominated, but there's now some stuff you have to fill out at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Poetlister. Thanks. Stanfordandson 13:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry your nomination not only didn't go through, but was closed early.  :( Stanfordandson 02:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Po: A bit of advice. If you want you next RfA to succeed, you might have to spend some time on Wikipedia: projects and templates and designing categories and other "process" areas, rather than just on articles. Like you, I prefer to spend 90% of my W-time just on articles so I do not anticipate RfA for myself ever. -- TechsMechs 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] FYI

FYI [3] Tyrenius 00:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Another barnstar!

Minor Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your tireless copyediting, a barnstar and a limerick for you: Fair Miss Hillman had two loves in academics, English poets and poetry, and statistics. As neither interest was dominant, She became quite prominent Writing "Regression Analysis in Distichs" From one oppressed individual to another, Billy Blythe 05:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia. 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)

[edit] Wikipedia: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)

[edit] re: Category:Date of birth missing

Good evening. Per the discussion about privacy concerns expressed at Wikipedia: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)

[edit] 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.[4] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia 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^{Conas tá tú?} 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^{Conas tá tú?} 22:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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))

[edit] About Rachel Brown.

I have a question. Why have you been mistaken for RachelBrown? She has been inactive on Wikipedia 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)

[edit] 1000 Edits.

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

[edit] Thanks.

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