User talk:Anna Roy - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluejay Young (talk | contribs) at 07:28, 23 July 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:28, 23 July 2010 by Bluejay Young (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Anna Roy, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Maya Angelou

Spanglej, I support boldness as much as anyone, but I think that you might have gone a little overboard with Dr. Angelou's bio. I certainly wouldn't characterize some of your large deletions as "trivia". It's customary to discuss any major edits on the article's talk page. As a result, since you removed some important content with your edits, I'm reverting you. If you'd like to discuss any wholesale changes, please do so on the article's talk page. This article is in great need of some major copyediting, I realize, but not the removal of huge chunks of content as you did. I welcome any copyediting and additions to the article, of course. --Christine (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To twit

Greetings Spanglej - thought you might be interested in the following:OED. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Keats and refs

Hi, Spanglej, you're quite welcome. I tend to have an eye for detail, something that has been drilled into me after half a dozen or so trips to FAC, so I'm glad to help out. As for the addition of the "Retrieved on/Accessed on" perimeter, I believe that you're correct in that it's meant as a safeguard against deadlinks. A source with a recent "Retrieved on" date will of course be considered a safer bet than one that was accessed several years ago. I sometimes go through the links in articles I've worked on in the past, just to make sure that they're still working; if they are, I update the access date. This may seem anal and unnecessary, but I find it strangely calming. :)

As for Keats' article itself, I'm not sure I'm confident enough in my abilities (even with two degrees in English lit!) to contribute much to the article other than tiny fixes here and there. An author's works section is the most difficult to write, as I discovered with both Emily Dickinson and Stephen Crane, so I definitely know where you're coming from. I would gladly help with copy-editing, and any other source-related issues in the article, so just let me know. Take care and good luck, María (habla conmigo) 20:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Moore

Please keep your edits to substantive information and relevant facts. Unless you have information which clearly disputes the well sourced and cited additions I have made, it is inappropriate to promulgate falsehood. I openly wear and admit my environmental bias and at the same time strive to report the facts plainly and fully.

Your previous edits are appreciated, but wholesale removal of carefully worded and painstakingly researched facts is not appreciated. If you have suggestions or edits for specific wording of the facts, I am very open to that and look forward to it and welcome it.

Please, though, do not engage in wholesale censorship because of hastily perceived opinion. The facts ARE the facts.

The facts ARE: 1. Moore claims he is a co-founder of Greenpeace. 2. Moore uses those claims to garner more media attention and income for himself. 3. The claim is utterly false, as shown by numerous sources.

The clear delineation of this is as critical as Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman" and John Edwards "That is not my baby". The falsehoods and the delineation of the falsehoods are made intensely more relevant by Moore's own intentional promulgation of these falsehoods, to the extent that Moore's intentional and vociferous promulgation of falsehood is a story in and of itself.

The are more Moore facts which fall into the line of Moore attempting to promulgate well-substantiated myths as truth, and that, in and of itself, is a legitimate part of his biography.

As much as a biography gets to be fair to the subject, it also gets to be fair to the truth, and not a "fluff" piece for the subject. Moore has his own website and can fluff it up all he wants. Misplaced Pages is dedicated to the truth, which is not always pleasurable to the subject of the truth. TheForrest (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

Based on your comments, I changed the lead to make it more objectively current. I disagree about removing the entire "co-founder" thing to the Controversy section. It is relevant as Moore trades on it, and ANY mention of him being a co-founder needs to be framed accordingly. And I reassert that the facts are very, very clear. The cites I refernence are PRIMARILY from third party media outlets, published books, legal records in Vancouver, and Moore's own biographical timeline. (If the organization was founded in January of 1970, and Moore lists the beginning of his involvement as 1971, how can he possibly be a "co-founder" unless he's somehow cracked the whole time-space continuum thing?) I find it ironic that you say "Citing an essay and Greenpeace's own website as sources are not very useful as they opponents in the dispute." when that is ALL the evidence (and a corrected Greenpeace website archived somewhere else at that) there is to support Moore's claim to co-founding. I agree that this is not a propaganda or counter-propoganda leaflet, and at the same time, the facts do need to be clearly laid out.

I have no interest in an edit war either. I look forward to working with you further to achieve the commendable balance I am convinced you are equally committed to. It is more certainly in the best interest of promulgating truths that whatever biased tone I may present be adequately objectified.

TheForrest (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright images

Hello, you recently added a number of copyrighted images to Terry Pratchett without providing proper fairuse rationale. They have been removed. Please note that Misplaced Pages only allows copyright images to be used only if very strict conditions are met. Please be certain when adding images to articles that the proper guidelines are followed. MM207.69.137.15 (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed them from Sam Beckett. Can you return to the articles where you have inserted copyright images and remove them, or after you have read and understand Wikipedias copyright policies, provide appropriate rationale for those instances where the use may be appropriate? Thanks. MM207.69.137.15 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

Hi Spanglej, I hpoe you are well. I have realised that I never thanked you for your excellent bibliographical work on the citations in Oscar Wilde; it was so important in bringing the article up to a correct standard. You may have noticed that it was recently listed as a GA, and you ought be proud of your contribution to that. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (footnotes)

Hola Spangle,

Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (footnotes)

Also, Enzo was born on a farm near Spangle, Washington!

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

John Keats‎‎

Hi Spanglej, rather than we fall out over two words, am I missing something than 'latest born' and youngest? I'm a bit puzzled tbh. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Difficult to convey succinctly I agree. Perhaps an explanatory note in the refs. I do have some bio and critical material on Keats but not were I am this weekend. Still, look forward to working with you on the page over the next few weeks. Best. Ceoil (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you email me pls, - I have a few sources. Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I figured out how to send - you have e-mail, pong. Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Patrick Moore

You're welcome. And thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Barbara Kingsolver

Hello Spanglej, thank you for some of the recent edits you made to the page Barbara Kingsolver. As was kindly noted above, major changes are usually discussed on the talk page, and I very much encourage you to take a look at what's recently been done there. The article has recently undergone a pretty serious peer review, and I'd like to work with you to incorporate some of your changes with the solid material which was already there, as I'm hoping to take it to a good article nomination soon. Could we perhaps discuss some of your changes on the articles talk page? Looking forward to working with you! Jhfortier (Talk · contribs ) 03:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I want to add a quick note about edit summaries: a great way to avoid frustration with other editors (in my humble opinion!) is to leave really detailed, complete edit summaries. If you are just fixing a typo, then by all means "ce" or "typo" are fine, but when you wrote "add quote and ref" as the edit summary, and you actually completely changed a section as well, that can be really frustrating. If another editor wants to review your edits to the page, it's especially difficult to find the correct ones, as you haven't left a complete edit summary. Just a friendly suggestion :) Jhfortier (Talk · contribs ) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all treading on toes; it's SO important to have different viewpoints. The peer reviews by a few different editors have been so helpful. The page went a bit quiet (another editor and I are both in the process of acquiring some third-party books on her literary themes to enhance that section before it goes back to GA) and some of your edits really did give me pause (Should the local eating go under personal life or writing career? I really actually don't know for sure, and would love some input). The edit summaries, though, I think are super important, and I'm glad you agree; I've known editors to try to disguise more controversial edits with really general edit summaries, and since then I've really valued how much they can prevent misunderstanding among editors.

Well, that was a really round-about way of saying I'm looking forward to extra input on the page and working with you. Happy editing! Jhfortier (Talk · contribs ) 04:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on the TNH:talk page

Hello - You made the following comment on the TNH talk page "I should think there are deep problems at all of TNH's monasteries and through the empire, speaking from personal experience. I can see no news on the http://helpbatnha.org/ and see nothing recent in the media." and I found it interesting. I've had adding info about the crisis at Bat Nha on my to-do list, but haven't found time to add it yet. The issues at Bat Nha relate to the Vietnamese government's state sanctioned religions and their contention that Bat Nha falls outside the official state Buddhist church. Your comment, though makes me wonder if you are thinking of something else/more global. I would be very interested in hearing your views/observations. If you like, leave me a message on my talk page, and if you're not comfortable with that, let me know and I'll give you my email. Thanks Nightngle (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Illusionist article

Yeah, I meant copies as in prints of the film rolls. Actually prints is probably the word I was searching for. But cinemas is better if you found it unclear.

Regarding the order of the currencies the revenue is displayed in, I guess it doesn't really matter which way it's done, but my reason to put dollars first was that it is what Box Office Mojo reports. The euro numbers are my own calculation, based on the exchange rate on BOM's website (which should be the $/€ exchange rate from 20 June 2010). Glad to see more editors interested in this article, it needs a lot of copy editing but has a high potential to become really good eventually! Smetanahue (talk) 08:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Helen Bamber

Well my first reaction was that it was probably a hoax. I was glad the AfD nom was uncompleted, so that I could remove it on purely technical grounds. However User:Helen Bamber Foundation as been around a little while (since 11th June) and has made only this one edit. Either it's a hoax (so why wait so long) or they have a genuine problem with the article. Just in case - and assuming WP:AGF - I left a suitable message on the user's talk page. --NSH001 (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sylvia Plath

Hi,

This edit undid several recent changes I made. Firstly, there's no rationale given for arbitrarily downsizing the images; on high-resolution displays it makes them tiny compared to the article body, rather than scaling appropriately. Secondly, an article on a person is by definition a biography in its entirety; it therefore makes little sense labelling one section of such an article "Biography". Any thoughts? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for putting back the Joanne Greenberg interview link in The Bell Jar. What exactly is a "signpost" anyhow, for further reference? --Bluejay Young (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

John Ashbery

Hi Spanglej – With respect, I'm concerned that your stating Kessler's version of events without Ashbery's response is rather less than ideal with respect to questions of balance and BLP criteria. I was quite careful in the original edit to not characterize, summarize, or enter into the fray, but simply to note the fact of the dispute's existence, and to provide cites so that a curious reader might read and judge the matter for her/himself. Might it be possible either to regress to that simple noting of the dispute's existence, which it seems to me is certainly appropriate for the entry with respect to BLP, or, alternatively, for you to provide something that notes Ashbery's version of events – particularly as this entry falls under the BLP criteria and we must be absolutely scrupulous in our presentation of any material that might be interpreted negatively.