Sweetpool50

I must say I'm staggered at your arrogance and domineering attitude. You appear to think that you own the page Between Scylla and Charybdis, and your history of edits confirms this. You reverted every insertion of mine, and I note your history in reverting many other editors' insertions, too. I'm staggered also that not only do you appear to refute that Ulysses has any place in this article, but you display a complete ignorance of this novel and its references. Episode 9 in Ulysses is entitled Scylla and Charybdis, and Joyce poses his own interpretations and idiomatic takes on the dilemma. You have attempted to tailor this page around a single nicety, that of the proverb, ignoring all cultural references that are themselves new proverbial instances of the dilemma. It is clear that self-styled editors like you are the kind that is bringing Wikipedia to its knees. It is no longer what it used to be, a usable and informative encyclopedia, but is trapped in jargon and legalisms that make the enquirer truly exasperated. All your points that you make on my page can be dismissed out of hand, and are of no consequence at any rate. For example, who says that Cultural Reference insertions should be in chronological order? Only you, and I don't appreciate your threat of 'having me blocked' as well.

User:Archopedia (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I draw your attention to WP:CIVILITY, WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:VERIFY, all of which are policies that make a project like Wikipedia workable.

• Episode IX in Ulysses is not numbered in the novel, nor is it titled. It is therefore necessary to establish proper sources for that assertion.
• The limiting of this article to the idiom was a decision taken in 2011 so as to avoid the article as it was then from being deleted. It was discussed on the talk page and is in no way arbitrary .
• Articles are required by editorial policy to stay on topic (see several other guidelines and essays on relevance) and your discussion of the subject-matter of the episode in question, which did not so much as mention the names "Scylla and Charybdis", was in consequence incomprehensible. I was courteous enough to point out a proper context for your edit in the article on the novel and how you might make a properly sourced reference to Joyce's work in the article on the idiom. That hardly counts as "arrogance".

You have not, so far, insisted on replacing the text that was so wide of Wikipedia policy; that would have constituted edit warring and brings an automatic sanction if persisted in. Cautioning against bad behaviour is not a threat. I don't want to get into a war with you, since you obviously have something to offer, but it must be according to policy. Getting to know how these work first is a good idea and it's provided for by WP:Mentoring. Why don't you give that a try? Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see that at User talk:Beyond My Ken you wrote "Since September newly registered editors can't make redirects during their first fortnight. I'll have to wait patiently!" If you want me to do it for you, just let me know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

That would be very kind of you. Yes please! Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks very much, James! Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello Sweetpool50,

Since you have messaged me about the John Donne page, I will be more careful about what content I add. I am sorry to have caused any problem on Wikipedia, as I truly appreciate all the information it provides. Have a wonderful Thanksgiving!

Sincerely, Melissa Mmele310 (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good afternoon Sweetpool50! Although you removed almost everything that I added to the King's Speech article, I am passionate about this topic so I look forward to communicating with you about this. After reading your comments on the article's talk page, many of your points make perfect sense and I agree with almost everything that you deleted. However, there are some points that I feel should have been kept.

Concerning my previous paragraph on King Edward, I still feel that the article should go into more detail than your revision. There were three sentences I wrote that still talk about Edward, but the events are during the timespan of the film, which was one of your concerns. The sentences include the one about the home video, the honeymoon to Nazi Germany, and the British tapping King Edward's phone lines. I feel it is important to include because even though you say it's not the main theme of the film, any historical difference is important in my mind.

For my paragraphs about King George, there is only a minor change that you removed that I think should be re-added. You took out part of a sentence stating, "despite the speech merely taken place seven months after the Duke started seeing Logue". I think this statement is very important because it puts in perspective the timeline of events that occurred in the film. King George had made tremendous improvements to his speech before the speech that gave the film its name, and adding this statement would better reflect that. In addition, I think that a simple sentence concerning his support for appeasement is needed because in its current state, it does not describe if King George supported the policy or not.

For Winston Churchill, I think the statement talking about him going to Parliament and making a speech in support of Edward is important, although I should have paraphrased it instead of direct quoting it. This is important because it directly demonstrates Churchill's support for King Edward.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts, and I hope we can come to an agreement on what should, or should not be, added to this article. Have a nice day! Jsomm1 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Jsomm1, I'm not sure what you're supposed to be a "student editor" of but suspect it is not of an encylopaedia, which is one of my fields of expertise. Let's begin with your plea to add "despite the speech merely taken place seven months after the Duke started seeing Logue", which is neither grammatical nor well expressed. There is already contextual information that makes the same point in that paragraph, in any case, and it does not need to be laboured. As for Churchill's support of Edward VIII, the article already said that this was "well established" and gave a scholarly reference. No more is needed because the matter does not arise in the film, and the article is about the film.

As for your witch hunt of Edward, it appears to be inspired by a muck-raking journalist in pursuit of a swift buck. It's dumb to complain about what does not appear in the film when those that made it did their own historical research; they may well have been aware of the points you raise but chose not to include coverage of them because their focus was mainly on the Duke of York and his speech impediment and Edward is only brought in incidentally as his actions had an impact on his brother's life. That, by the way, is an example of good (script) editing. Other historical facts that are missing, incidentally, include the royal stamp collection, to which George V and his two reigning sons gave a lot of attention; also the civil war in Spain, in which many British citizens took part.

What you are demanding is coverage of matters that were certainly considered important at the time but that was a matter of politics. A bi-election was held in Oxford in 1938 which the Labour candidate fought on the issue of appeasement and got a very low vote. Edward VIII was often regarded as a compassionate man, impatient of protocol and concerned for the plight of the working class, who was forced to abdicate by a Conservative prime minister suspicious of his Socialist sympathies. You, with your reliance on anachronistic and self-righteous attitudes, should at least have researched the background of 1930s opinion before making your changes. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Hi Sweetpool50! I'm the Content Expert for the course and I wanted to step in a little. Jsomm1 didn't mean to come across as self-righteous or anachonistic - he was just coming in from the viewpoint of someone who is new to Wikipedia and as such, isn't familiar with some of the protocol and guidelines on here. For example, he's not as familiar with WP:UNDUE than someone more familiar with Wikipedia would be, as he's used to writing essays and reading papers where something like what he added would be expected. Basically, his intent may have come across wrong because he wasn't here to give off the vocal and body language queues that would signify that he meant no offense. I would like to ask that you just be a bit patient with them, as they really do want to do what's best by the article and Wikipedia.

As far as the content goes, I do think that the sections go into more depth than is really warranted for a film article, as these pages typically just give a brief overview of any inaccuracies or true events behind the film, especially if there's already an article that goes into more depth on the topic. Just as Sweetpool50 said, Jcsomm1, there isn't a true need to cover Edward VIII as much in this section because he wasn't the true focus of the movie and as such, much of this information may have been left out because of time constraints and concerns about how to fit it into the script. I do think that it's worth mentioning in the section, but only in a sentence or two, which is currently present in the article. Now as far as the information with Churchhill and Edward VIII goes, I think that this falls into the same category - the only thing I would say could potentially be worth adding would be a sentence that mentions that the two enjoyed a closer relationship in real life than they did in the film.

I'm putting the information about whether or not Edward VIII was pro-Nazi or not in another section. The issue here is that this has never been concretely confirmed. There are allegations and evidence that would suggest this, however Edward VIII himself stated that he was not and that evidence that suggested that he was pro-Nazi was taken out of context. What this means for Wikipedia is that we cannot make any absolute statements on this and must essentially style the article to record that while it's suggested that he was and that he at least seemed to have Nazi sympathies, there is nothing to absolutely prove that Edward VIII was pro-Nazi. This is a bit of a moot point since the film article doesn't need this much in-depth coverage, but it's something I wanted to go into in general. Basically, as far as public figures go we cannot definitively state that someone is or isn't something on Wikipedia unless they specifically claim it themselves (and in a way that can't be claimed as taken out of context) or it's been proven beyond a reasonable doubt - and even then, this only applies in specific situations.

I hope that this helps sort things out a little! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see that you reverted my edit to La Fontaine's Fables. The Oxford English Dictionary says:

"Usage

Note that although humor is the American spelling of humour, humorous is not an American form. This word is spelled the same way in both British and American English, and the spelling humourous is regarded as an error"

Regards. Orenburg1 (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Orenburg1 Obviously it's a generational thing. The 1960 Websters Dictionary still allows "humourous", so usage has changed since then! Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your edit here, please note that "alternate history" is correct in American English. Per WP:ENGVAR, articles on US-related topics, as with The Final Countdown (film), are to be written in American English. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

@BilCat - My Websters (1960) does not recognise this usage, which is ambiguous and therefore exclusive. I know it's policy for dictionaries to include popular usage nowadays, but that does not sanction it as correct for a scholarly context, to which WP aspires. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello -- I am relying on the biography of Housman by Martin Blocksidge called "A.E. Housman, A Single Life" (2016), pp. 63-64. I will be happy to provide you with further citations about this, but I am not sure whether you question Housman's eventual receipt of a "pass" degree, or question the wording that he failed to obtain an honours degree as such. I understand that Oxford, at least currently, does not officially designate degrees as "Honours"(see https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/graduation/verification?wssl=1 toward the bottom of the page). You will, of course, know the system at Oxford much better than I do, and perhaps will want to amend Housman's entry accordingly. My concern with the original wording was that it implied Housman simply left Oxford with no degree at all, when he received the pass degree in 1882 (unless I am badly misreading Blocksidge's writing). Like everyone else, I want the article to be accurate. I suppose an inquiry to the University might give a definitive answer. Helmfr00 00:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. What I wanted was the actual wording on which you were relying, in case you had misunderstood the meaning. I have a distant memory of a contemporary of mine who was confined to a mental hospital during Finals. That would have qualified him for an Aegrotat, but he preferred to sit the exam (a bit later) in the hospital so as to get at least a Pass. That was in the 20th century; things may have been different in the 19th. & yes, our degrees were described as Honours in my time, but what counted was the class of degree gained: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and Pass. Sweetpool50 (talk) 01:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Certainly -- here is the language from Blocksidge's work (pp 63-64):

"[Housman's] forced re-entry to St. John's College, Oxford, in October 1881, in order to qualify for a Pass degree, was a humiliation of a much more public kind. . . . His intention was to spend the academic year 1881-1882 in preparation for his degree . . .. Although taking a Pass degree was the one way in which Housman could salvage what remained of his academic reputation, and at least acquire a B.A., doing so involved much swallowed pride . . .. The Oxford Pass degree, as its name suggests, was not designed for the university's high fliers, and certainly not the likes of Housman . . .. Rather, the Pass school was the general resort of hearty young men not particularly concerned about getting on in the world . . ..

In the meantime I have found some better information online at the following unwieldy link to a 1988 work entitled A.E. Housman at University College, London by P.G. Naiditch (https://books.google.com/books?id=hZb90uvtg20C&pg=PA202&lpg=PA202&dq=housman+%22pass+degree%22&source=bl&ots=CctOVhE8IX&sig=FMbcea86vq6P_KE40oGUpPjzEc0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjlyYia8bTYAhWiYd8KHVeIAMIQ6AEIRDAE#v=onepage&q=housman%20%22pass%20degree%22&f=false). At pp. 202-203 this work cites the OU statutes in force at Housman's time, and speculates that Housman was failed in his first round of examinations because the examiners perceived that he treated the philosophy examination with contempt. I think I will add a reference to this work in the appropriate place at Housman's article. I do appreciate your comments and guidance, and am open to amending the wording of the article to be more accurate as you may recommend. Best wishes for the New Year Holiday. Helmfr00 22:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmfr00 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the clarification. With your help I have been able to rewrite the passage, in particular making it clear that it was only for a single term at the end of 1881 that AEH returned for resits. While I was at it, I also rewrote and reordered a lot more of the section. The downside of WP's open policy is that at least half of its contributors (I do not include you in this number) lack editorial abilities and simply dump whatever trivial fact they have stumbled across into contexts where they do not belong. I noticed particularly that Housman's rejection by Jackson was placed both during their time together in Oxford and later in London as well. Stuff like that is what makes WP such a doubtful source. You and I do what we can, but we're merely Dutch boys trying to plug a dyke with our thumb!

On a more cautionary note, Naiditch is a past chairman of the Housman Society and is to be listened to with respect. On the other hand, the point he makes about AEH getting up the noses of the examiners is only speculation, probably not supported by a reliable source. Even if that speculation appears in a published source, it does not necessarily make it acceptable by WP guidelines. Sweetpool50 (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Again, many thanks for your clarifications. Yes, I took Naiditch's commentary about the examiners as being his theory only. Helmfr00 02:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmfr00 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for creating Walmar Wladimir Schwab, Sweetpool50!

Wikipedia editor Mduvekot just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Mduvekot's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Mduvekot (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sweetpool50. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Marcel Wantz, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Icewhiz (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sweetpool50,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Marcel Wantz should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcel Wantz .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if you have been offended of my edit summary (I don't find it so serious). Anyway, any problem on the article, let's discuss there. Greetings. Tajotep (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Marcel Wantz 1930.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sweetpool50 - show us a single source where it says there lived Armenians. We assume there are included there for sake of listing. There could live even couple Chinese people then (by your logic). In this cases, only major nationalities could be listed as inhabitants not minor travelers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunner555 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The information was in the article before I amplified it. At that time most of the references were to Russian/Ukrainian sources. Other historians of the period mention Armenians as great traders so there seems nothing improbable about their presence at a meeting place of several trade routes. I notice your destructive edits made on Sviatoslav I's connection with the fall of the Khazar state and have reversed those too. There seems to be a consensus in Wikipedia articles (citing references) that his attacks weakened the empire so that it disintegrated into separate statelets and that he asserted rulership over Tmutarakan. Discuss the question on the Talk page in future. It is also time you learned how to sign your name to comments with four tildes (eg "~") if you want to be taken seriously. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sweetpool50 - trade travelers?? You consider them inhabitants? In that case, Tmutarakan were visited by probably 100 different nationalities. Your argument is weak. Without reference you cannot make that judgements.

Regarding Svyatoslav - weakening the state doesn't mean destruction of it. After his attacks Khazar state existed but as shrinked. No single warrior ended glorious Khazar Empire. It felt due to various factors. That is why, it should be modified saying mostly by Svyatoslav I. Gunner555 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

You're notorious on Wikipedia for edit warring and not producing evidence for your own assertions. No changes will be made until you do so on the Talk page, as requested. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

thanks for reverting[1] my AWB edit to Talk:John Donne, in which I tagged the page with {{WikiProject Ireland}}.

I eventually found out what happened. Back in 2011, @Laurel Lodged had made[2] Category:Converts to Anglicanism from Roman Catholicism a subcat of Category:Irish Anglicans, which is daft because only a minority of those in the category are Irish. As a result of that my AWB list-making of Category:Irish Anglicans had picked up all converts to Anglicanism from Roman Catholicism. I have fixed[3] the category, and reverted all the pages which like Donne had been wrongly tagged.

Thanks again for triggering my checks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Re your undo of the section (including my recent entry in same) To_an_Athlete_Dying_Young#References in other media, I wish you'd reconsider. Such sections are extremely common in Wikipedia and have never been discouraged. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections#%22In_popular_culture%22_and_%22Cultural_references%22_material

As to the relevance of my entry viz "advancing knowledge of the text", the poem's inclusion in Out of Africa (film) arguably rescued it from obscurity through Meryl Streep's soulful rendition as witnessed by millions of movie-goers.

I won't comment on the '72 Olympics entry preceding mine, but your diktat that the whole section be removed seems a bit presumptuous. Cliffewiki (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have transferred the discussion to the article's Talk page. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

This edit you reverted is not "vandalism".--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

It's disruptive of the image positioning and without an edit summary, so it looks very like vandalism. Kindly explain how you know it is not, in any case. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

The editor removed whitespace that they believed to be extraneous. I know it's not vandalism because I'm an administrator that has been evaluating vandalism and disruption for over 7 years. Please see WP:VANDNOT for additional context.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but perceptions differ. JDDJS in his reversion claims he "moved an extra line". I have three screens to play with but on the wider of them that I generally use the subtitle lies level with the description of the image in the section before and the positioning looks awful. Isn't there some way of readjusting it? Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sweetpool50. I've much admired and appreciated your excellent work at Pandora. But please don't call some other editor's edits ignorant, as you did here. See WP:NPA. Regards, Paul August ☎ 17:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the shot across my bows, and for the approval on the relevant talk page of the rewording. Since you're an administrator, I hope you'll understand my previous irritation at WP:WIKILAWYERING. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Your welcome. And I understand well, that Wikipedia provides many opportunities for irritation ;-). Paul August ☎ 17:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Nato a Lecce", very first thing. I'm not adding it to Lecce again. — Wyliepedia @ 10:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

At the moment there is only a biographical stub on the English WP. Sourced information there should come first. Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

On the dilemma page, you removed several links to other types of dilemmas (chicken or egg, morton's fork, etc.). Could you explain your reasons for doing so? Thanks in advance. Leon181 (talk) 03:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Certainly, WP:REF. Just creating a list of all those items as a section in the body of the article counts as original research and does not add to anybody's comprehension. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

If they had been included in the "see also" section, without the summaries, would that have been acceptable? Leon181 (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

There has been a template regarding lack of references at the top of the page since 2009. WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and requires that editors should understand the subject and source their statements. Simply dumping lists about the place is not responsible editing. Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Hagley Park, Worcestershire -- PBS (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can provide you with some more information but it will have to be by email. -- PBS (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

That's kind of you @PBS. I found even more precise information about the park boundary in a 1766 book that I've just added to the bibliography. I've more or less reached the limit of what is useful to say in that first section...until Joe Hawkins writes his doctoral thesis, anyway. He got very cagey last month when he found out that I was a writer, but he told me enough to realise that he's uncovering some extremely useful evidence. I have the next section to finish on the literary/pictorial aspect of the grounds. Wait till I get it written later this week and then let me know what more you think should be said.

Giving you my email would be against Wikipedia policy on anonymity. I have a sneaking idea that I may know you already - or you me. I certainly know two other past contributors on Hagley subjects, although we've never discussed our contributions up to now. We work together in another context. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Actually it is not against Wikipedia policy on anonymity, you can email me because I have that option enabled (see the left of the page at User:PBS) -- PBS (talk) 07:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

I assume this reversion with the summary was erroneous, as my edit expanded the article with an additional reliable source, fixed various formatting issues, and added additional categories to correspond to sourced content in the article. If you have issues with this edit, please discuss specific concerns at Talk:Park Mok-wol. Regards, 59.149.124.29 (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

You are perhaps misreading the diff, as I neither "reduced the section on his life" (in fact, the article had no section on his life at all before I added it in my edit) nor "added material to the summary that was not in the body of the article" (the content about his directorship of Yesurwon and his professorships at Hongik and Hanyang University was already there before I started editing; the only thing I added was the formal name of the Korean Academy of Arts). In any case if you felt the content about his professorships and such belonged in the "Personal life" section as well you should have simply moved it there in the first place rather than reverting the whole edit with a claim that it represented "no improvement". 59.149.124.29 (talk) 15:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Actually, it's you who should have talked before reverting for a second time. Awien (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Why completely remove the entry to the Monster House comic? It was drawn by one of the storyboard artists on the film, and does tie in heavily to the story in the film. The reference used even mentions how it ties in. How can you reason that because it was released shortly before the film, it lessens the importance? Merchandise is released to hype up a film's release. It's not unusual. The video game was released three days prior to the film's release. The comic came out five days prior to the film. --SamuelConners (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

You'll pardon me, but on reading the reference I cannot find any convincing tie-in. Coincidence of characters in a completely different story strikes me as WP:OFFTOPIC. What's more you admit to being "commissioned to work on certain articles". How am I to know it's not a case of conflict of interest here? Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

So wait, you think that the tie-in comic for the film is about an entirely different story, is that your take? Or that it's a similarly titled comic with no connection to the film? Because I've read the comic, and it is indeed a licensed story that tells two stories about Bones( the character played by Jason Lee) and how he lost the Kite in old Nebbercracker's house, something that's discussed in the film. It also features his interactions with the babysitter Zee, and his friendship with Skull. The first of two stories begins with the events of him losing his Kite and then goes through the rest of the movie's events told from Bones' perspective. Here's a blurb from the Previews Catalog release, which I'll also link here: https://www.previewsworld.com/Catalog/APR063230

A companion to the all-ages film, Monster House follows the lives of BONES AND SKULL, a two-man heavy metal outfit with questionable talent on the road to nowhere fast. When a fight over the future of the band tears the two friends apart, Bones finds himself, inexplicably, in front of old man Nebbercracker's Monster House. There, Bones must confront a wrathful home, childhood memories and his dejected girlfriend if he plans on saving his friendship... and his life. Also features "Final Roll," a bonus back-up story with art and script provided by Simeon Wilkins.

I'm just confused, because I don't know if you're doubting the nature of it being a licensed work created for the film(in which case I can also send you pictures of the comic itself and its contents, just so you're convinced that its tie-in nature for the film is undeniable), or if you specifically don't want an additional tie-in work mentioned on the movie page, in which case other movie pages have also mentioned tie-in works, and given how little tie-in works there are for the film, I'm wondering why we should keep this one out yet reference the video game(especially with the movie's storyboard artist Simeon Wilkins involved in drawing and writing the comic).

As for the nature of my commission, I have outlined on my page that those only included my work on Franchesca Floirendo's page and the works she's been involved in. She has never been involved on Monster House or the comic. There is no information that I'm aware of that would say otherwise.SamuelConners (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Here's a link to the storyboard artist's website where he talks about doing work for the comic as work on the film came to a close. http://www.robotoperatormanuals.com/comics/MHcomic.html --SamuelConners (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

OK. now our spat's out the way, I think this definitely worth an FA. Are you up for a collaboration? KJP1 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

It's years since I collaborated on a WP project or had anything to do with a FA - apart from burnishing the Gray's Elegy piece. I'm interested, but what had you in mind as my contribution? Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I'm absolutely open to suggestions but my first thought was something like:

• History and architecture - me;
• The abbey in art / The abbey in literature - you.

It has featured so heavily that I'm pretty sure separate sections on both would be appropriate. A bit like the, smaller, section in Monnow Bridge. I've another article on the go at present and find I can only manage one at a time. Shall we both ponder, and wander through the possible sources, and I'll catch up with you in a while. KJP1 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

OK, I have a couple of other articles on the go currently. One thing I'd like to see removed is the intrusive list of abbots - which apart from the names is just anecdotal. The article is about the building, not mediaeval monastics. If the list is copied from some source, a simple reference pointing to it would be sufficient; if such a list does not exist, then its presence here is OR. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Excellent - and agree absolutely about the list of abbots - it’s gotta go! I had a similar tussle over the List of Assistant Organists at Saint Fin Barre's Cathedral which was completely OR. We’ve both got other things on just now, and I reckon my current collaboration will take another month or so. I’ll set about gathering the history/architecture sources, and get back. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

My guess is that the list of abbots comes from an appendix in Sir Harold Brakspear's 1910 study, which I've just got. We can make a list of it. One quick query - are you ok with sfn referencing? It's the only one I use now. I'll convert the article as and when if you are. KJP1 (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

I use the reference method I was taught way back when I was at university. Wot's sfn, electronic whizz-kid stuff? Meanwhile I've found a few more lit-refs, nothing mind-blowing; most poems are mind-numbing reflections on how the times they are a-changing. No wonder Wordsworth comes as a relief after such conventional posturing, for all that his poem isn't about the abbey at all! While looking for stuff online to consult, I discovered Monmouthshire. Descriptive Accounts of Tintern Abbey: Selected from the Most Esteemed Writers which was sold at the abbey in 1797. Such a high degree of organisation suggests a section on the tourist trade is called for, drawing to it information scattered through other sections. Incidentally, I'd prefer to leave history and architecture largely to you - I have a feeling they're details that you've concentrated on in other articles on which you've worked. Somewhere I've discovered a simple plan of the abbey explaining what alligns where which I'll upload. It's a big site and we're going to need that, I reckon.

You're absolutely right about a plan. A colleague who's done some for me on other FAs has kindly offer to do one. But upload away and we can make use as appropriate. I'm fine with History/Architecture. The abbey in tourism is another area that could certainly have a section, the Wye tours when Napoleon scotched the Grand Tour were quite a big deal and, as chance would have it, I picked up The Wye Tour and its Artists by Julian Mitchell a few months ago. I've got some more on this, Kissack etc. Happy for you to have this, as an off-shoot of the abbey in art/literature, or to pick it up myself. As you choose, I am really not precious re. divisions! And the abbey and industry? Not so sure. The abbey was long a ruin by the time industry really hit Tintern. Maybe just a bit in history?

Let me set it up in sfn and you'll see what I mean. Or Monnow Bridge gives the idea. KJP1 (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should pool our knowledge on tourism, maybe as a sandbox item. I've found I can't now grab the plan I came across; maybe you're more savvy. It's on p.57 of Tintern Abbey and Its Founders. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Right, have made a start with an outline. All subject to change/discussion of course. I'll fill out the empty sections, with a line or two, as I think it looks bad for the general reader, and then go through the refs. Are you ok with your parts, and did we agree on who's picking up Tourism? Is there any particular timescale that you'd like to work to. We can move at whatever pace suits, but things speed up a little when one hits PR/FAC. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you made a start. Items on bits of the building, suitably subtitled, should be moved up the page, I think, leaving the cultural items to follow on. I think I'm taking a subordinate role, concentrating mostly on the cultural interpretation. However, I did see Tourism and its literature as largely my responsibility, but I'd be grateful if you let me know of stuff you come across that you think shold be in. Your main interest seems be historical; however, the industrial interface intrigues me and was of interest to early tourists. The present monomania with the past, refusing to acknowledge that life must move on, I find distasteful and sentimenal - part of my Buddhist outlook, no doubt. That's not something I'd comment on overtly, but I am hoping to demonstrate this through the medium of our encyclopaedic coverage!

As to time-line, there's a cultural event in California in which I've just been invited to take part at the beginning of April and that might impinge on my active participation in the article. It's Chinese sponsored, so I'll take the opportunity to send you all good wishes for the Chinese New Year, which begins today. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great - you pick up Tourism as part of Depictions/Appreciation or whatever we end up calling it. I shall list on the Talkpage those books/bits I have. It may well be that a section on The Wye Tour stands alone, or we might find it overlaps too much with the Art/Literature parts. It’s hard to say till we see what sources we can gather. I can certainly cover the Industry in History, but am equally fine if you’d like to take that section. As to positioning - I have tried Architecture before History in previous FACs, but there’s a clear consensus that the History/Art/Cultural depictions etc. should come first, with a description of what’s actually still standing following. We could try it the other way if you felt strongly, but I think we’ll get pushback. Note the timing, and we can either try before April or after, depending on how it’s going. All the best, and an excellent Chinese New Year to you too. KJP1 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just a quick comment - if we're taking this to FAC via PR, there will be many, many changes to the wording, and more, along the way. We both need to be comfortable with this, or it'll just be impossible. SovalValtos has been very helpful with other FAs I've worked on, and has offered to take photos for this one. The difference between "hazardous" and "dangerous" just isn't worth sweating! All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sweetpool - apologies, having been rather busy irl, and having been distracted by a building across the pond, I've been remiss in building up Tintern. I'll get back to it as soon as I can, but probably not before this weekend. How are your sections going? KJP1 (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for keeping me updated. I've been suffering from a really bad case of writer's block, something I haven't had for a very long time. Just to keep my eye in, I tidied up Metaphysical Poets after another editor cut it up far too simplistically. It really bugs me that so many people contributing to WP have no idea of either editing, continuity or encyclopaedic style. Your idea of doing drafts and looking at each-other's is good. I might make a start there.

"Distracted by a building across the pond" intrigued me. I take it you didn't actually go and take a look. My conference in April relates to a different religion, but is encyclopedia based. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great - there's no hurry and if we end up PR/FAC'ing in the summer, as I think we probably will, that's fine. It's worth remembering that, when we get to those stages, we will need the input/comments/contributions of other editors. Otherwise we won't achieve what we want to achieve. So, we need to encourage wider participation from the outset. Take care. KJP1 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

PR/FAC?????????????? Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article was looking a mess and had an illogical progression which I've tried to address. It makes clearer the gaps I need to fill in the sections in which I'm interested - tourism, art, lit. I'm not a fan of your proposal to have a formal multi-editor conference. RB has a special interest in Wales, that's fine; a couple of other indolent editors were once interested (one of whom lives locally, I think) but don't appear inclined to pull their finger out now. I've worked as part of an encyclopedia team in the past, but in this case I agreed to work only in tandem with you. Please don't shift the goalposts on me. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Just intruding here. "The article is about the building, not mediaeval monastics". Really?? Of course the list of abbots needs to be referenced - but when and if that is done it also needs to be reinstated, in my view. An encyclopedic article surely needs to cover the whole history of the site, as a functioning entity as well as its later role as an attractive ruin. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC) And PS: After 96K edits, I don't take kindly to being described as "indolent", thank you very much. Interested in life beyond Wikipedia, yes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sweetpool - PR = Peer review and FAC = Featured article candidates. Can I try to explain how these processes work, and why I think the approach you're adopting will be problematic. At both PR and FAC, the main editor on an article actively solicits comment/suggestions/amendments from other editors. The aim is to work collaboratively to improve an article, by enhancing the prose, increasing the depth and breadth of coverage, ensuring it's properly cited etc., etc. But the key is to welcome comment and actively and positively engage with it. We've had three editors comment on/edit the Tintern page since we started to look at it. The first you reverted when they made an uncontroversial wording change. The second you described as an officious nuisance and the third you called indolent. Such an approach will certainly mean we would fail to make this article a Featured Article. Far from encouraging wider engagement, it will simply drive editors away. And without the support of other editors, you just can't have an successful FAC. It really is that simple. I certainly don't mean we need some "formal multi-editor conference", but we do need to engage in the normal to-and-fro of editors working together.

Speaking frankly, I do need to know if you can adapt to working in this collaborative way with as wide a range of editors as choose to engage. If you can't, I really don't think we can take our collaboration further. KJP1 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

No hard feelings, but your use of acronyms didn't make clear what you had in mind. The only example of collaborative working that I've come across before is the long drawn out working towards Good Article status for Gray's Elegy which was successful but reminded me in the end of the witticism that 'a camel is a horse designed by a committee'. I'll work on the sections in which I'm interested on my own for now. I hope you're not telling me, though, that my remarks on content will not be as welcome as any other editor's once the process you propose gets under way. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

No hard feelings on my part either and your contributions will, of course, be welcome at any time. Al the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tintern_Abbey&oldid=prev&diff=892749390 "not referred to in text": this hasn't been a precondition anywhere. Rather the pictures are mostly understood as a complement to the text. Look around. "adds nothing new": apart from the specific era of the depiction together with a specific perspective and a specific state of the building in that era. This is what you'll find when you take a not too bullheaded stance, anyway. -- Kku (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article in question is about Greek colonies. Naming of this article Greeks in pre-Roman Crimea is probably too restrictive. It's not just about Crimea !!! Please read BOTH articles to see if there is indeed connection between the two !!!

• Hermonassa
• Greeks in pre-Roman Crimea

Thank you !!! User:Abune (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I did read the article on Greeks in Crimea and could find no mention of Hermonassa. It was partly for that reason that I reversed your addition. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• May be have a look at this picture ! All Greek colonies of this period in this geographical region are pictured here. Most articles about each individual colony proudly displays this picture, but they do not refer to main Wikipedia article that actually describes this subject as a whole. User:Abune (talk)

I see where you're coming from and might agree that a link from the See Also page might be useful. However, an inline link to a WP article that does not mention the town would be WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• If you see my point than how it is “off topic” ?

Of course one could have extensively edit both articles in order to make this connection via specific ( actually the same !!!) subject matter more obvious than it is right now. Can you help with such edit ? Thanks ! User:Abune (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

Editing WP is not about scoring cheap debating points, it's about following guidelines. In this case, the subject of the main article is about the Russo-Khazar city and the section on the former Greek settlement on its site is by way of background. In that there was a development of that in the 2nd century CE, it might just as well have had a link to the article on the Roman Crimea. However, Hermonassa/Tmuturakan is not in the Crimea and was the centre of a goddess cult different from that of Greek cities in the Crimea. Making the link you wanted was therefore unhelpful and off-topic. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• The way I understood your argument: 90% of article in question is about Tmuturakan and just 10% about Hermonassa and hence "see also" statement in main article body is not warranted. In this case how about putting "see also" statement into the article Notes section ? Any other suggestions ? User:Abune (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

The most revelevant article on WP is that on the Bosporan Kingdom, to which there is already a link in the body of the first section, and that article does mention Hermonassa and later Tmutarakan. Making a link, by note or any other method, to articles which do not mention the city is, I repeat, unhelpful and off-topic. If you would only read the style guidance given, you would find the rationale there that "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information." Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Excellent suggestion Bosporan Kingdom !!! It specifically says:

1. Early Greek colonies

Main article: Greeks in pre-Roman Crimea

so article you suggested actually refers back to Greeks in pre-Roman Crimea !!! As main article on this subject. Apparently our editing style differs in the sense, that I approach editing from subject matter prospective trying to direct reader to main source of relevant information. User:Abune (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted your undo because I don't like people with WP:OWN issues. Second as I removed data -89 with my edits I don't care for liars = "wordy" edits.

Third it's quite obvious you've don't know the plot because the chronology of your edits (that I guess you are protecting) is wrong too.

For example Steiner is recalled from Russia before Radl meets Himmler (but not according to your version of the film).

Fourth I don't know where you learn to write prose but basically the plot that you shortened is poorly written in a passive voice (with odd tense changes from is to was).

Considering you call yourselves a "Buddhist", the first thing you should know is about the concept of "letting go". 86.129.4.31 (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@86.129.4.31. I remind you of WP:CIVILITY. The ultimate sanction against personal attacks is blocking. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your (completely fallacious) post on my talk page here, please see WP:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. Notwithstanding my love of Wikipedia, the vaguely threatening tone of your intervention makes me relieved no longer to be a registered user. 86.191.67.197 (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Please see here. It's a good idea to discuss before rather than after making hasty reversions. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

My reply is on the talk-page. You are required to assume an editor's good faith, and my suggestion of a reliable source and discussion of the question should have informed you that the edit was not "hasty". Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

I m sorry but there aren't any ancient sources claiming a supposed African origin of Aesop. I don't even know where did this idea come from. The only writing depictions of Aesop by the Ancient Greeks are his ugliness and the fact he was an hunchback.

Some ancient authors give us a possible location of his origins. He is thought to be a slave born in Phrygia or in Lydia. There are no mention of any Ethiopia or anything in connection with subsaharan Africa.

We have also a supposed statue of him. Even if its veracity is weak, we don't see any "African" trait on this sculpture.

Of course I start this with the hypothesis that Aesop really existed even if we know that is certainly improbable. Unsigned message from User:Gelias01, 17:18, 26 May 2019‎

Sure, but we are dealing with an encyclopedia and that has to take note of all theories if there is a valid academic source. You have no right to wade in and delete what you do not disagree with. That is disruptive behavior, and so is abusing those you do not agree with. That is what I complained of on your talk page and I repeat what I said there: if you are not prepared to follow the guidelines on Wikipedia, your editing privileges will be blocked. I realise that you are a new editor and suggest now that you read first the guidelines which another editor has put on your talk page. And that includes signing your name by typing four of these signs (~) at the end of your messages in future. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I would be happy to discuss it with you on the Talk page, but you must use the WP:BRD procedure. Do not simply revert to your preferred version. This language has been stable in the article, and you need a WP:CONSENSUS to change it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Category:The Dog and Its Reflection requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Sweetpool50,

I read your message on Category talk:The Dog and Its Reflection. I'll give the category another week. If you can find at least one article that fits this category, it will not be deleted. You need to assign pages to a category, it doesn't happen "automatically". Find an appropriate article and if you can't figure out what to do, go to the Teahouse or come to my user talk page. If the category is still empty on Aug. 7th, it will be deleted again. But should you find it necessary in the future, you can always recreate it. Good luck! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just saw you reverted the edit I made to Samuel Croxall and I've addressed the reason for that edit on its talk page. I would love to discuss and reach consensus on this there. Thanks! Sauzer (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Cobbler and the Financier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

See my talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Sweetpool50, this is Kymoor104 here I saw your message to Doug about my edits and I wanted to apologize for wrongly using Wikipedia Articles, I didn't know that was against the rules. I'm going to revert my edits and make sure I use more reliable sources from now on. Sorry for any trouble i've caused you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kymoor104 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually, Sweetpool50 my current edits on Bellona, Kali, Enyo and Anat are my newest ones and are backed up by veritable reliable sources. I have been following up on my promise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kymoor104 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Most edits are still unreliable - look up Wikipedia:Citing sources. And at least learn how to sign your posts at WP:Signature. Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Actually @Sweetpool50 you have this situation completely wrong, I included relevant links to the goddesses similar to Bellona and made sure my information is variable. Sweetpool50 you're the one who keeps on harassing me and accusing me of faking ignorance and being a poser up to no good. If you check my contributions you can see while I have Been on Wikipedia since 2014 I didn't post for nearly 5 years between August 2014 and April this year and i'm STILL learning how to do certain things on this website, but I assure you any mistakes i've made contributing and editing aren't because i'm a bad user but because i'm Human and still learning! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kymoor104 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

And despite being pointed to the relevant guideline, you still haven't signed your post. I suggest you learn HOW to edit without disruption before you do any more. And don't leave answers here to the discussion on Doug Weller's talk page. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for making mistakes.★Trekker (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I see this editor blanked a polite request on his talk with the remark "No need to be rude". That is NOT encouraging. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sweetpool50

I don't know what led you to revert[4] my edit to George Herbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) … but your choice to label my edit as disruption was unfounded.

My edit was not disruptive, so I have restored it.[5]

If you still believe that my edit caused a problem, please explain it to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hullo, BrownHairedGirl, I'm a loss since as far as I was concerned, I was only reverting the stupid smiley left by 84.68.34.137. I apologise for reverting the wrong edit. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Sweetpool50. It can be easy to revert the wrong edit, so thanks for clearing that up.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your reversion and claim of incoherence makes no sense, and I wonder at your understanding of good English and punctuation.

The article as it stood was written in an archaic and incoherent language (and appeared to be pasted from some 19th century source) and I was editing to make things clearer and add some fully sourced pertinent facts.

I was mid-edit but most of my source is from the world famous Book of Days (which I presume you have heard of).

I do not appreciate people needlessly wasting my time and presume you have some strange love of the article in its poorly written form so I will cease now, --Stephencdickson (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I found very few references but a lot of editorial opinionation. I suppose the fact that you were still working on the article might explain the misspellings; working piecemeal in the way you do is not my idea of careful editing, though. If you feel the subject needs airing, bring it up on the article's talk page. Simply asserting that the language is "archaic and incoherent" looks like more editorial opinionation without quoting a style guide to back that up. Fowler's English Usage? Chicago Manual of Style? I've worked with both in different countries. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Your argument is self-contradictory as (unless you live on another planet) you should be able to differentiate between current English usage and archaic terminology and phraseology... that said I see you have a history of pointless re-edits to your own desires... it is your "opinionation" which clouds the article... to cite Fowler's English Usage which is almost a century old is a bizarre claim if you are trying to state that the style is contemporary... it is far from it--Stephencdickson (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polyphemus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Sweetpool50. You have new messages at Doug Weller's talk page.
Message added 20:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

Doug Weller talk 20:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sweetpool50. After accusing me of being a "lazy editor" when reverting my change on The Scorpion and the Frog, perhaps you could spare a moment to explain what I am missing. You say that the connection to Original Sin has been made "in the reference already quoted", but the book "Weighing Hearts" doesn't mention Original Sin on the referenced page (and seems to only use those words together once, many pages later, in a reference to Jeroboam). It would be nice to have more context in the article, explaining who is making the connection and the logical process they are using to do so. Thank you. --FiftyOne 51.6.245.37 (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I just want to ask you something? How is Metacritic not a reliable source when every other movie has it? Thanks Martinc1994 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia article on Metacritic says it is unreliable. Another comments that it is so for any film made before 2000, and the one in question here dates from 1995. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

That I may get, but every other film that was released before 2000 has a Metacritic on Wikipedia. Martinc1994 (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

That's exaggerating: most if not all Chaplin films don't, for a start. In any cast Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a poor argument. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

You clearly have WP:OWN issues and then have the temerity to claim you're a Buddhist. PMSL.

Your edits have a persistent and nastiness about them. You evidentially don't seek enlightenment because of the amount of material you delete and are unwilling to share with others (let them pass judgment on whether it's valid or not).

Maybe you are a Buddihist. A fat bald cnut who sits on their arse under a tree all day pontificating to others <laughs hysterically>. 81.141.61.10 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you tell me the moral of the story? is it force is needed to fight force? No . I think it is persuasion is better than force. https://fablesofaesop.com/the-north-wind-and-the-sun.html If you write it that hot is more powerful than cold, then you lose the moral.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why ask a question when you have plainly made up your mind already? The article's first section discusses several readings of what is an ancient story. A WP editor is not here to force his own interpretation; fables are generally succinctly told and certainly do not need tautology of the order of "warmed with the sun's heat". Sweetpool50 (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I observe that you have just deleted the text of the cultural references section of Childe Harold's Pilgrimage with the note that no references were cited.

Let me point out that ever ssingle entry there, was a reference in itself, that gave the name of the book (or whatever) and author.

You chose to delete. You could have inserted a banner that stated that references were needed.

Or, better still, if you are sitting at home at your computer, like almost everyone who has one, with time on your hands, you could have referenced every one of the references by extracting the information that was in the text.

Not everybody that contributes to Wikipedia has the skills to do so, and that is why some people do not, but if you do, then it would be a much better than just deleting.

Amandajm (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lovelock, Nevada. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Since we had agreed to resort to discussion on the article's Talk page, your action in leaving this warning so soon after strikes me as acting in bad faith. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

You are edit warring again. Hopefully one of the watchers of your talk page will visit the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

In other words, anyone who disagrees with your bullying one-sided interpretation of guidelines is edit-warring. I had hoped to come to a meeting of minds with you, but that's beginning to seem impossible. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, and I hope all is well. Just saw this and wanted to ask if you can maybe ease up on newbies a bit. Calling this edit the result of 'stupidity' may turn off and turn away a potential long-term Wikipedian before they start. Someone who thinks they see an error and has the consideration to fix it, even if they are mistaken, is probably "one of us", and a better revert may be adding "good faith" in your comment and explain why it's incorrect. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message, Randy Kryn. Normally I would take it to heart, but if you look at the edit summaries of this editor you will see that they are mostly opinionated and discourteous. It might be a good idea if you left a message on that editor's talk page suggesting he looks at the guidelines on these matters and that he consider giving himself a user name, don't you think? Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good idea, and   Done. I didn't check on the editors other edits, so thanks for keeping an eye on those. Maybe we can nurture a potentially good editor a bit. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for a period of 3 months. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

They may seem silly, but they do draw attention to often-obscure subjects, and therefore are notable enough to be mentioned in our articles. (Heck, I only learned about Gentileschi because of her appearances in the 1632 series.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for commenting on this edit, Orangemike. It brings up a point that probably deserves wider discussion. To my mind, citing a Wikidoodle available only for 24 hours doesn't seem to fit the WP:SOURCE guideline. And in that particular case, though the intention was to commemorate La Fontaine, the main subject of the doodle was the fable of The Tortoise and the Hare, which was not exclusively La Fontaine's. Again, simply dumping mention in a section dealing with depictions of the fabulist was inaccurate and infringed WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It may not have been comprehensive enough to give "not notable" as a summary, but I dislike summaries that turn into essays! Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi - per your comment, it was my curiosity as to why Mangeot was specifically described as English on Isherwood's page that led me to revert your deletion of this fact. Rather than diminishing the information by removing this as you did, I have proposed to clarify his French origin by adding text to the same effect. Shorn again (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I discuss WP:TOPIC on your talk page. Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--81.141.32.129 (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Thanks for taking the time to reply and to point out to me that I may not be the person to do a rewrite on the article. I agree that I am probably not the person to do the subject justice. I do have knowledge of certain artists that you have mentioned including Eugene Chigot and Henri le Sidaner, both of whom I have just completed articles on for Wikipedia. I was hoping that someone with more knowledge and interest would take your interesting article and put it in a wikipedia format. I can do this but I'd only attempt it with your approval. It looks like a major piece of editing. Please don't let me put you off--Dorkinglad (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

In my defence in the articles on Chigot and Le Sidaner I talk of a loose collective of artists. I am aware that there were many different groups. kind regards --Dorkinglad (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there's no war. The section is simply unclear with different information being claimed. It needs a reference to clarify. I believe your reversion was hasty and not taking the issue at hand seriously. Please revert your revert. Regards Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent articles, including Joshua Dinsdale, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section. Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent articles, including Joshua Dinsdale, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. For example, WikiProject Poland relies on such templates to generate listings such as Article Alerts, Popular Pages, Quality and Importance Matrix and the Cleanup Listing. Thanks to them, WikiProject members are more easily able to defend your work from deletion, or simply help try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information about using those talk page templates. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

It occurs to me that it would be useful to have an infobox for individual Aesop's fables. It could include:

• The Greek name(s)
• The Latin name(s)
• The English name(s)
• The earliest attestation
• The protagonists
• The corresponding La Fontaine fable, if any
• The moral, epimethion, or promethion from some standard source (Phaedrus?)
• The Perry Index
• The Aarne-Thompson index, if any
• A suitable illustration

I am no expert, so the above list may be completely off the mark, but something like this would be helpful for including useful information that doesn't really fit into a narrative. Do you know of any work along these lines? --Macrakis (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's an interesting proposal but nearly impossible to implement when dealing with folkloric material two and a half millennia old. To begin with, ascriptions are doubtful. There are two scholarly works that cover the ancient end of the subject: the three vols of History of the Graeco-Latin Fable by Francisco Rodríguez Adrados; and Ainoi, Logoi, Mythoi: Fables in Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek Literature by G. J. Van Dijk - much of them available on Google. The names of fables, where given at all, differ over time, as do protagonists and morals. Their fluidity is partly what makes them so attractive to people. I (as Mzilikazi in those days) and User:Annielogue drew up guidelines for the creation of Aesop's Fables articles back in 2011 that covered most of what you suggest for the userbox. But it strikes me that your proposal is more appropriate to 'modern' text-based material (eg La Fontaine's Fables) rather than the nebulous area of traditional stories where the texts are multiple and often contradictory! To get an idea of the problem, take a look at The Horse that Lost its Liberty and Lion's share...neither of which names functioned anciently as their fable's title but serve as a suitable portmanteau for WP articles. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is it not more accurate to state that the mining operation in the movie is Hydraulic mining? Hydraulic mining is specifically historic and representative of early mining in the Pacific west, especially in California. It is more destructive than strip mining, in the sense that rather than being replaced in the mine, the overburden all washes many miles downstream, altering ecosystems, usually destructively.

Moreover, Hydraulic mining and its environmental issue is a specific plot element; "COY: Not only that... ...some of them *** politicians want to do away with hydraulic mining. "Raping the land," they call it."

I recognized what as was being portrayed, that the movie's villain was also being tacitly portrayed as an environmental criminal (not an opinion of the character, but personal observation of the direction), but I specifically did not make that claim in the edit.

Which is truer and more encyclopedic, stating that LaHood's operation is strip mining or hydraulic mining?

Regarding the second part of the reverted edit, the camp dealt with various feelings of guilt and abandonment: “I can’t believe he just—left. I mean, it’s not—not like him. We were his friends. He said so. After all he’s gone and done for us, for him to just pick up and disappear—I can’t believe that. If he was leaving he’d have told us something. He’d have . . .” “All that talk of fighting, no wonder he left.”

I can accept "ungrammatical", but opinion was kept out of the edit.

I hope you can restore the accurate hydraulic mining link.

IveGoneAway (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, yes, it is hydraulic mining, and there are references (mostly in blogs) to that. However, it was a process largely connected with California (and contiguous states) and the term is not so immediately accessible as "strip mining". I see the Christian Science Monitor review of the film refers to the process as "a kind of strip mining", so that term is acceptable too. Again, this appears in the Plot section, which is meant to provide a kind of streamlined overview. - It was also in the interest of keeping things honed that I objected to your other addition, as well as objecting to personification of the word "camp". I know this question is within your special sphere of interest, so I'd suggest that you add a paragraph to the main article on the ecological concerns raised by the film, rather than introducing a term not immediately familiar to most English-speaking readers into the plot summary to make the point you obviously want to. Besides, you can cite sources there, as you cannot in the summary. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou for the pointers on Synopses, I generally don't touch them on the wiki. I found the poor prospectors' "camp" bit contrived, but nothing I think I can make a paragraph on, It just doesn't strike me as normal for people to work a claim long enough to erect houses With out finding much sign of gold.

I collaborate with a University student in South China. (Fortunately for me) She enjoys it when I provide the Geopolitical and cultural contexts [OMG 1985 no wonder I though of Disney Nature Reels when I saw the hydraulic mining then] for the non-Chinese movies she's now watching. She asked me about the portrayal of ethnic Chinese in that movie.

Maybe I can now suggest "Paint Your Wagon"

IveGoneAway (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aesop's Fables, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corsican.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hey dear Sweetpool50, most non-native English speakers associate ass with something else. "It later served as foundation for a different fable based on a proverb about three things that are the better for beating, a misogynistic saying widespread in Europe that has many variants worldwide." is not English. "foundation" is the wrong term! What does "better for beating" mean? Better than what? It sounds to be google-translated. Please, revert your last edit! --Geysirhead (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Are you a "non-native English speaker" yourself? You certainly do not seem at home with UK usage, anyway. The LA Times at least seems happy with the phrasing you deprecate. But I'm grateful to you for drawing my attention to the summary in the lede which said more than is mentioned in the article, and I've modified that. As for use of the word "ass", that is the word used where that animal appears in the referenced English sources. If you really feel there is an ambiguity, a link to the donkey "or ass" WP article would have been a better approach. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

"It later served as foundation for a different fable based on a European proverb about three things that are the better for beating." is still not an English sentence and contains grammar issues. Please, at least link your ass to Asinus! It is an ambiguous term even for native English speakers, especially in the context of "better beating". I will answer your question about my native tongue once you answer my previously posed questions. It sounds like a fair deal to me.--Geysirhead (talk) 12:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Unless you are a native speaker of UK English and have a degree in the subject, leave me to judge what is correct usage. I will make the link I suggested to you. As for moving up the image, it is presently sited where it is discussed in the text, which is perfectly acceptable. So far as I know, there is no policy that demands that an illustration should always be at the head of an article. If you want to discuss matters further, I suggest this takes place on the article's Talk page, as suggested by WP:BRD. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Unless you are a native speaker of UK English and have a degree in the subject, leave me to judge what is correct usage. Please, elaborate on the means of proving it to you! --Geysirhead (talk) 10:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

The time of your edit seems to suggest a European location. Further up you said you were prepared to disclose whether you were a native speaker. A senior friend of mine, an English resident in the Netherlands and a translator, once told me the Dutch regularly tried to correct his English usage, and something similar could be the case with you. But let's get back to the article. I've made a few changes that perhaps we can agree on. Misogyny is nowhere mentioned in the article and WP editors tend to get jumpy when it's mentioned, so it may be best left out. The article should really keep to the subject of the fable, so too much discussion of the proverb, except where authors make the connection, would be WP:OFFTOPIC. Should you want to take the discussion further, I'll transfer some of the above to the article's talk page. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

No. It later served as foundation for a different fable based on a European proverb about three things that are better for beating. remains nonsense.Geysirhead (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Geysirhead: Could you please explain what you think the problem is with that sentence. Paul August ☎ 21:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

"as foundation for a different fable based on a European proverb" A "different fable" was "founded" on the primary fable, but "based" on the proverb? Is "foundation" meant to be a synonym to "base"? "about three things that are better for beating" The little word "better" is a Comparative derived from "good". It should compare two entities. The first entity is "three things". What is the second one? Why should we use null comparative here?--Geysirhead (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The discussion has now been transferred to its proper place on the Talk page of The Walnut Tree. Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the information on my talk page. I figured it best to just address both points here - I agree with your revision with Aesop, I didn't mean anything like edit-warring. I previously undid your revision because your edit summary saying "He was talking a lot of rubbish" sounded knee-jerk and vague. But I agree with your points, my addition wasn't very relevant to Aesop's article.
As for the edit summaries, thank you for letting me know. I'll keep them brief or open discussions in articles' talk pages. Bagabondo (talk) 20:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, All Hallows' Eve (novel), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:All Hallows' Eve cover, 1945.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello Sweetpool50, Thank you for your message. The link was very helpful as well. I will be mindful of the policy in the future. --ORSfan (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

How is my recent edit to A Bridge Too Far (film) unencyclopedic? I simply updated the average rating and added the consensus, which is how it's generally displayed on Wikipedia. Songwaters (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Updating the rating may be general usage, but the "general consensus" fails WP:SOURCE since it is unattributed on the site. Not one of the critics quoted there uses the actual phrase "top notch", which is slangy (unencyclopedic) and undue regional usage, so I find that material suspect and against WP guidelines. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

After adding a revision the The Alchemist (novel) that was not sourced my revisions were un-done. It was stated all I need to do was add a source, after doing so it was un-done. My friend, check your eyes. I wrote a passage about a genre that this book pertains to and a source that is evident of my claims. After looking at your page you only seem to exist to piss people off and I have yet to seen you contribute in a meaningful manner. Please rethink you power trip, (and maybe go outside), that seems to have gone for far too long as it is not productive to this website as a whole. Unsigned by Hawkiloo 04:20, 28 April 2021‎

WP:NPA Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sorting that edit - not sure what happened there!Pipsally (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Computers sometimes have minds of their own, I know! Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me pal, how dare you call someone self righteous for pointing out that there was no J in Latin on a PUBLIC encyclopedia forum? I'm sure you're an angry little boy in your mother's basement if this is your livelihood. Get a life.

Uncivil and unsigned response that does not tell the whole truth about this message. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Aldus Huxley reference is a well known, I have removed the Bond oblique reference. Mariegriffiths (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted your new image of the painting "Oceanid" by Annie Swynnerton, since your image needs to be rotated 90 degrees. Paul August ☎ 16:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Ost316. I noticed that you recently removed content from Archer at Large without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please do not leave a page void of content. If you believe that the page should not exist, please use appropriate deletion processes. Ost (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ost316 I see you have dishonestly changed the wording on the tag. It read "This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed". This was dated from 2010, without a change in that 'article' since then. My explanation for removal of unsourced material was a perfectly valid one in line with that tag and you should have assumed good faith before reverting. Over and above that, and the evident uninterest in this article, the book is only a compilation of novels, only some of which have separate articles. It is stupid to retain this one and I'm repeating my edit. If you agree with me, perhaps we can together ask for its deletion; I'd have to look up the process but perhaps you know already. Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

...I've just remembered, a Redirect will serve the same purpose. I'll reverse myself and redirect to the Ross Macdonald article, which has all the information available in this stub. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I regret that the {{uw-delete1}} refers to the edit summary and probably should have used {{uw-blank1}} (which I now see is an option, though not available in WP:TWINKLE). However, I did not dishonestly change the tag; I added a reference to the page to validate the list of works in the collection and changed the tag to reflect that change. Leaving the {{unreferenced}} tag when there was now a reference would have been dishonest, and though I understand that it obscures that the original tag existed since 2010, it would be inaccurate to tag {{refimprove}} with that old date. I also added a tag for {{notability}}, because that is the policy that would reflect that the entire topic was not worthy of an article, rather than a concern with the content of the page. I don't make it my practice to nominate article for deletion for others and I don't know enough about this topic to have a strong opinion on if the page is warranted, but I suspect that it isn't and the redirect approach seems reasonable to me since it has the same content. —Ost (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Sweetpool50. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:All Hallows' Eve (novel), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi

I edited the Eyam page yesterday with my friend’s book in the fiction section but it seems to have been taken down. Would there be a reason, did I do it wrong? Any advice?

Thanks

Julia 2A00:23C5:CE83:7801:99F3:2EEB:4137:6627 (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

A similar edit for the same book was already deleted earlier as WP:SPAM. Deletion will always follow personal promotions of this kind according to editing guidelines. Proper sourcing must not be a commercial announcement but some acknowledgement in the press of an objective kind that the work is notable. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The American literature part is still very white-poet dominated. Please don't revert but please add more recognition of sonnet diversity in American literature 23.246.116.5 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia requires proper sourcing per WP:SOURCE. It's a scholarly document and is disrupted by odd facts just dumped onto the page. Learn to edit properly by looking at guidelines if you don't want to be reverted. Sweetpool50 (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I improved the incorrect lineage of the first American sonnet writers so I'm not all bad! Smiley. 23.246.116.5 (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm not from the US, but my interest in its poetry started with the academic formalists back in the 50s/60s. My problem with your edits is that, like previous contributors to the Sonnet article, you put undue emphasis on a subject that particular interests you and you don't take the trouble to integrate your additions into the rest of the article. & it's no use giving a source which cannot be checked when web reference is followed up. That's against guidelines and will be reverted. You need to give page references and full publication details of the book you're quoting from. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok but you should look at books like this and know this isn't "my" interest it is scholarship. https://mississippi.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.14325/mississippi/9781496817839.001.0001/upso-9781496817839 23.246.116.5 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The Prince & Me are a fictional couple, as this is a movie, so what was wrong with my edit? Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Many Dimensions, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 01:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the dispute reolution noticeboard, I just want to remind you that the moderator has asked questions that you have not responded to that need to be addressed for them to proceed with additional input. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi- In this edit, you state that you are reverting a "misleading" edit. I maintain that, eating a single pea in one's entire life is no indication of vegetarianism. Brummel was describing the extent of his avoidance of vegetables. In point of fact, your reversion strikes me as not only misleading, but confusing and confused, to be blunt. Is there some missing context about which a reader (including myself) ought to be informed? Hate to belabor this, but I invite you to defend your edit. --Quisqualis (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The concept of vegetarianism is probably anachronistic in this context. The phrase "avoidance of eating vegetables" may be preferable. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The sourced statements I deleted were used to draw original conclusions. The sections on "The Novel" and "Social Mobility" are full of original research and woolly conclusions not supported by the sources cited. Also, the correct term is "Southern California." I was born and raised in CA and have never heard anyone refer to the region as "south California." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've replied on my talkpage here Paul August ☎ 15:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

One of the comments in the discussion I gave does mention Emmanuel Cosquin doing research about the connection (or simply the tale itself, not quite clear). Seems to be the one here, but my French knowledgs is insufficient to be sure. Omeganian (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'll take a look. The tale in question seems to concern a cat trained to act as a candle-holder. However, it cannot be assumed that all fables illustrating the nature over nurture question are related. Among them, for instance, are those concerning snakes that bite their benefactors, not to mention the frog and the scorpion. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to James Grainger, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. ITBF (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh now I get it. It was YOU who shared those insights about the Rhodope painting in the Aesop article, back when you were Mzilikazi1939! Why didn't you just say so? It is natural that you should be protective of them. Okay, yes, well, I will certain give those edits a wide berth.Stevensaylor (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, but I'll look for sources to support some of the inferences. It was the wholesale deletion of a description of elements of the painting to which I objected. That comes under the same protection as plot sections for novels, movies, etc. Sweetpool50 (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

My edits are not disruptive. You need to stop acting like you WP:OWN the article. And try reading WP:NOTVAND. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.124 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

You are edit Warring as well Chip3004 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pray tell what is disruptive about this ? User:Sweetpool50 chose to start an edit war over edits that were clearly not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.244.124 (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Edit summaries, though desirable, are not mandatory, and it is inappropriate to revert edits solely because they lack summaries. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

There were multiple edits and the editor demonstrated a warrior mentality thereafter, again without summary; later they persisted deviously by switching severs. That's what prompted the AIV report. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Which editor are you talking about here? Paul August ☎ 18:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

See the discussion above. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sweetpool50, you are continuing to demand that editors follow optional best practices, such as using an edit summary. You are also explicitly refusing to assume good faith based on your misunderstanding of how the internet works. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are policies, and you must follow them. Unlike using edit summaries, they are not optional. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

A few more obligatory policies were being ignored during the dispute. Exactly the same edits were being made previously by another IP (whose block was not withdrawn). Sock behaviour like that rather strains WP:AGF and pointing it out does not infringe WP:CIVIL. Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sweetpool50, two CheckUsers have said here on your talk page that your edits are inappropriate. You can ignore those warnings, I suppose, but I don't think it will end well. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Please do not delete content posted by other users. I can tell from your talk page that I am not the only one it has happened to. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 09:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

A message from a new, self-righteous and ignorant editor with little knowledge of the guidelines governing sources. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello again! Please do not resort to namecalling. Your reply to me certainly does not comply with WP:CIVIL, and as I have pointed out on the talk page of the article in question, your revert was in violation of guidelines on when to revert. Nikolaj1905 (talk) 08:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Regarding your upload of Damien Lovelock's album cover to Commons, copyrighted art is not allowed on Commons. It will always be found and deleted eventually. Commons is only for free use material; fair use files (such as album covers) should be uploaded to Wikipedia locally. That being said, illustrating an artist using one of their album covers is not considered a justified use of copyrighted material; for example, per WP:NFCC, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". I am sure that during his lifetime somebody took a picture of Lovelock in public that could be used instead. You also stated when you uploaded the file to Commons that it is your "own work", but this is clearly not true, so please in future do not claim as such. Thanks. Ss112 10:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

In what way is fonda the lead actor? take it to the talk page and make a case. Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with List of trees of Denmark. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Izzy Moony_{Hi new friend!} 10:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I put something in the article's Talk section about the Jill-Frank sexual encounter issue, though I haven't heard back from you yet about that. (Maybe you didn't know.) Hope to hear, thanks. 47.149.214.237 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sweetpool50. Happy to find another Georgette Heyer fan! Please see my comments on Talk:The_Quiet_Gentleman; can we discuss there? Thanks.Harborsparrow (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Harborsparrow, yes, Heyer novels are addictive although, because of repetitiousness of plot, best not over-indulged in! Since Talk pages are meant to keep themselves to actual editing, I've confined my reply to your comments largely to WP guidelines, which probably comes over as somewhat abrupt. If we do work on a mutually acceptable summary as suggested, that might best take place here. My background is rather different from yours, but has included a long spell as an editor during which I was responsible for four of a 20-volume encyclopedia, where we had to work to strict guidelines. I was once required to edit down a subject introduction by 3,000 words. We also had fortnightly consultations where we discussed our tasks and at times negotiated solutions. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sweetpool50, yes it's true that I haven't been as involved with Wikipedia in recent years as you have. Wow to 3000 words! But is it really the case that it is no longer proper wiki etiquette to use the Article Talk page to negotiate about the content of the article? I thought that was the place to do it. But it you'd rather do so on either of our personal Talk pages, I have no problem with it. I'm just a bit gobsmacked that doing it on the article Talk itself is not considered correct. Thanks for explaining that. Should I actually move my comments from there to here, or to my Talk page? Harborsparrow (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm afraid you don't read very closely, Harborsparrow. I said I edited out 3000 words (down from 17,000 I think), not that I edited the article down to that amount. Nor did I say that the Talk page was not the proper place to negotiate article content; most of your reasoning there, however, was an unhelpful tissue of personal opinion, whereas on WP we are required to follow editing guidelines. Leave your comments there, however, as an illustration of how not to go about editing. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I re-edited your reversion of my edits on this person. Mainly I re-edited the introductory line to parallel the style favored in Wikipedia, which roughly follows the order of "time, place, and manner". In historic individuals it identifies them as the "persons performing a specific action" that is: lawyers and not "persons who practiced law", firemen not "persons fighting fires". It can be tricky and controversial how to define "place", and there is room in this to change article, but in general, the trend in Italian biographies (including those in the era before our present iteration of Italy) has been to call an Italian anyone born and living in the peninsula and main coastal islands north of Lampedusa and south or Lake Como. There is a tendency to mute, in general, the particularities of place (Roman, Florentine, Sicilian, Venetian, etc) and use it sparingly in the introductory sentence unless it modifies our perceptions of their role and time.

For an example on how place can differ, I think all three are apt:

• Socrates (c. 470–399 BC) was a Greek philosopher from Athens
• [[Plato (428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher born in Athens during the Classical period in Ancient Greece.Rococo1700 (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Aristotle (384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath.

Hey there! I noticed you deleted a large section at the page above. I reverted it because it seems a bit out-of-place, and you deleted such a large chunk. Feel free to un-revert it, but it got on my radar, and it looked to have sources. It might be better to add citation needed templates to things, as some items were sourced. Thanks! 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 _(ramble) 15:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

AGreatUsernameChoice, I was in mid-edit when you intervened. I've added the template you suggested, but if the sourcing of a block of trivia is largely primary (where it exists at all) then it should be removed before it becomes a magnet for even more. The edit was per WP guidelines at MOS:CULTURALREFS. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alright, that’s fine! I apologize, I still don’t have a firm grasp on these kinds of guidelines, and deletion of a large chunk got marked as suspicious in the recent changes page. I don’t doubt this was in good faith, so thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia! 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 _(ramble) 19:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, there is a specific reason why you deleted the whole popular culture section of The More We Get Together? Wouldn't it have been enough to ask for references to be added to the sources? Many entries had sources inserted, however. Thanks, Paolo Gibellini (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Such sections are no longer welcome per MOS:CULTURALREFS. The question is not whether there are sources but whether a bare list is of any help in understanding the subject of the article. Though a lot of such sections still exist, the move now is to get rid of them. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I see, and in general agree with the MOS. Sometimes, however, it is useful to have lists like this to learn more about the topic described on the page. In your opinion, what would be the best section to put this kind of information? Paolo Gibellini (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article barely establishes the song's notability and I'm inclined to propose it for deletion. A list would do nothing for it. Only WP:RS that discuss the song will do that. Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

My question was general, not not necessarily linked to this specific page (I understand why you removed the listing, it's not a problem). I have always tried to maintain a balanced balance especially between the first and the fifth pillar, and and I was curious to know how pertinent but less encyclopaedic information could be inserted in a less rigid form, perhaps in a discursive form, that's all. Paolo Gibellini (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've sent it to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magical Moment. Donald Albury 23:11, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, Donald Albury. Sweetpool50 (talk) 09:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, I am quite upset you have removed my contribution to the 'buckle my shoe' page. I may have edited because it was slightly humorous, but I feel like not having it on the page is not doing what Wikipedia is about. Let me quote: "Free Knowledge for one and all". If someone in the future wants to know about Eddy's variation of the 'One, two, buckle my shoe' rhyme, they would have to try and search for the TikTok themselves, or either find out about it from a third-party journalist. I just feel like this is actually a valid part of its history, and therefore should be on the page. There isn't a reason it shouldn't be. 1,2,BuckleMyShooee (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

1,2,BuckleMyShooee, your edit failed WP:Notability and WP:RS. TikTok is deprecated as WP:UGC and unreliable on Wikipedia. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Then how do I link the video? An mp3? 1,2,BuckleMyShooee (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

You appear not to have looked at the editorial guidelines above. Edits against them count as WP:Disruption. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, no problem, whatever you want. Suit yourself on it; no skin lost here. It did add something to an unnecessarily minimal article ending. If we want to leave it blah that's fine with me. If people don't already know/are interested in the movie they're not going to read the article anyway. Bnichols23 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Was that reversion just because you consider the original order of sections to be better, or for another reason?

I'm aiming to achieve GA with this article, so comments (and contributions!) as we go will very welcome. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for checking with me first, User:JMF. I hadn't realised you were after GA status. My objection was that the reordering appeared illogical. Ogilby's translation work mostly predates his geographical work and should therefore be considered first. I would have thought the best approach would be to have a main section on Ogilby's publications with the translations and atlas appearing as subsections in that order. Part of the trouble with the atlas section is that it's disproportionately long (= WP:UNDUE) and perhaps should appear as a separate article, reserving consideration in the biographical article to contemporary opinion. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I tossed around the idea of how best to arrange the sections, because there are pros and cons for both approaches. I won't insist.

But I couldn't agree with splitting the article: it is not a long one and Ogilby is best known (at least among cartographers) for his road maps. A good third of Ereira's biography is devoted to the atlases, most of that to Britannia. I plan to extend the current section significantly (but not disproportionately).

I may be able to expand the Pope/Dryden criticism a litte more by mining Ereira, but it is "not my field": it would be great if you could add any modern literary assessments. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Here is one I found and tucked away to use, feel free to grab: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/57975287

The chief merit of his Homer conſiſts in a commendable and uniform fidelity to the ſenſe of his author. As a poet, his pretenſions to praiſe of any kind can ſcarcely be ſupported : he has neither animation of thought, accuracy of taſte, ſenſibility of feeling, nor ornament of diction.

— Chapman, J. (John), active 1792-1823; Jones, G.; Jones, John, 1766-1821; Pass, J.; Wilkes, John Encyclopaedia londinensis, or, Universal dictionary of arts, sciences, and literature : comprehending, under one general alphabetical arrangement, all the words and substance of every kind of dictiona..., vol 17, p430

Awaiting full metadata... --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

The list of the 100 plates in the atlas has no place in an article dealing with the life and career of the author. It's an egregious example of WP:OFFTOPIC and won't get you anywhere with a GA bid. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

That list long predates my involvement with the article. I have been working my way down the bio, checking sources and have just reached Britannia. Now that you identify it as an issue, I will look hard at where it should (or should not) be.

It has quite a bit to go before I would invite a GA review. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Why did you delete my edits? Vbbanaz05 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I generally leave an edit summary. Go and look. Sweetpool50 (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Sweetpool50, could you take a look at this edit? Looks like the https://books.google.com/books?id=wbElip8Kat0C=PA202&printsec=frontcover is a dead link. That you so much for your time. Lotje (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Lotje I'm not sure what point you're making, since there's an easily located and still working Google Books link to the page referred to; nor why you placed your notice in a completely unrelated conversation stream on my Talk page. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

.Thanks for coming back strange, I get 404 error: The requested URL /books?id=wbElip8Kat0C%3DPA202&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y was not found on this server. That’s all we know. Weird. Lotje (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, whatever was wrong, it seems to be sorted now. Thanks! Sweetpool50 (talk) 08:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Per WP:ENGVAR, we shouldn't be using British informal slang in an article about an American novel. In fact, we probably shouldn't be using any slang, British or American English in an article unless it's particularly germaine to the topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know. Thanks. John315 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You flagged his edits on his Talk page and now he is editing the new 2023 Maestro film article with odd mark ups. Is he just making up that this color film is in B and W? Could you take a look at what he is doing? HenryRoan (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

As noted, Maestro is largely in black-and-white, but with color at beginning and end. Thanks. John315 (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your concern. I linked the "Strangers in the Night (film)" article in my edit. That article didn't mention "A Shropshire Lad", until I edited it. The movie itself (which led me to the page) makes it very clear that a book of "A Shropshire Lad" is crucial to the plot. Not for its content, but for its existence. Wastrel Way (talk)Eric Wastrel Way (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Look at WP:OFFTOPIC. The article is about the actual history and contents of A Shropshire Lad, not about its appearance in works of fiction. The sentence that heads the Legacy section does not require itemising, that would involve WP:UNDUE. Sweetpool50 (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You should probably delete the reference to "The Shropshire Lad" in the movie article as well, then. I don't give a damn whether wikipedia has completeness or accuracy. Wastrel Way (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC) EricReply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Heinrich Steinhöwel. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox.

Hello, I work at New Page Patrol, and recently reviewed an article there on Heinrich Steinhöwel. I noticed that you removed a maintenance tag I had placed on the article, Heinrich Steinhöwel without fixing the problem. The problem is that the article does not have enough references, nor inline citations. While I do not disagree that he is notable, the article is almost entirely unsourced, (as is the German version of the article, which this was translated from.) En-WP requires that biographies in particular need to have each fact or claim referenced to a reliable source. That is how we maintain the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. BTW, maintenance tags are not a "badge of shame", they are a "heads-up" to the community of editors here that improvements need to be made to an article to bring it up to en-WP standards. I will be restoring the maintenance tag. Please add sources to this article that you created to comply with guidelines. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

It strikes me WP should smarten up its methodology. On several articles I notice exhortations to bulk them out with material from foreign-language Wikis but reactions such as yours are hardly encouraging for those who do. Naturally the bulk of the sources in those Wikis are going to be in the language of those articles - there's a Portuguese one as well, from which I lifted one sentence - and I judged that simply transferring information of those sources to the English article is not going to be particularly verifiable. I notice, by the way, that as well as the six sources mentioned in the German biographical section, which you dismiss in your message, it is also based on accessible German works of reference mentioned in the bibliography. Just restoring the maintenance tag without addressing the question of accessible sourcing helps no-one. I suggest you bring the question up at administrator level rather than throwing your weight around in such an officious and unhelpful way. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

You do, of course, realize that the article was previously deleted on en-WP due to copyright issues[6] on March 7, 2023. Were those COPYVIO issues checked against the German version before creating the article in English? Netherzone (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unhelpful and self-righteous as ever, @Netherzone! Yes, of course I knew of the previous deletion, although the investigation you linked to nowhere specifies what the problem was other than "copyright issues". However, since it is WP policy to suggest adding information from other Wikis, and since the German Wiki is acknowledged as a source, I fail to see the point of your question. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why did you revert my edit from 'translating' to 'translated'? What is "translating"supposed to mean in this context? The poem is printed; it is not taking place now.Kdammers (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Kdammers, perhaps English is not your first language and you do not realise that to say something is translated implies that there is an English translation of the article in question - which there is not so far as I know. Use of the present participle, however, implies that should it be translated, that would be the result. Your reversion was grammatically incorrect. Sweetpool50 (talk) 18:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Translating" is not clear. Let's try something better. If you don't like what I've now used, have a go at it. Kdammers (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

My apologies for taking so long to get back to you on this, @Kdammers. As you'll have noticed, I was busy sourcing the Heinrich Steinhoevel article. Your latest edit is fine. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, just to check- are you following me around? Because that's not supposed to be done. I find it curious, for example, that you and you alone are to sit in judgement regarding matters such as this, in your edit summary reverting my minor edit to the article of Crome Yellow: "Anne's regret is not insisted on as an integral part of the plot". I'm sorry you don't like the nature of the edits I've made, but I would caution you against too obvious a campaign of pursuit, as such is impermissible on Wikipedia. Best regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.233.111 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed you reverted a cite using iDreamBooks [7] because that source is deprecated. I was going to challenge it, too, but I didn't see it listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. And reading the description at iDreamBooks, it seemed to have things in common with Rotten Tomatos, especially the aggregation of critical assessments (not user-generated ones), which is accepted as OK for certain things. I accept that it's deprecated, as I suspected. I just wondered if there is another way I can identify a source as unreliable? _signed, Willondon (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks @Willondon. Actually the edits were as a result of the discussion at Novels portal. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I see. Thanks for your reply. _signed, Willondon (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aside from being flagrant ad hominem, this is hilariously inaccurate. If you're going to belittle other editors, it might be best for your own reputation if you stick to doing it to editors who don't have more than a dozen years' tenure over you. I'll be cutting that section down on my next pass and without a far more policy-guided rationale next time I don't expect it to be reverted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sweetpool50, you may want to have a look here. Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sweetpool50 :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have to object to your undoing my "a characteristic of Chandler's novels" (you said "the film is being discussed, not the novel"). The addition does pertain to the film because it explains *why* the film's plot is convoluted (at this point in the article, it's established that a Chandler novel is the film's source). (And syntactically, the addition specifically refers to "its [i.e., the film's] convoluted plot".) BMJ-pdx (talk) 02:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion of your editing should be at the article in question, not here. However, your protest will get you nowhere. Not only is it WP:OFFTOPIC for the reason I gave, but you butted into a sourced statement where the source does not mention Chandler's writing style. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You should be aware that it is the actions of wannabe demigods that cause many people to stop contributing to Wikipedia. BMJ-pdx (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:NPA Sweetpool50 (talk) 11:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to The Tortoise and the Birds, would you be interested in a wikiproject on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the invitation. My research is necessarily text-based and, except through that mediation, I have little experience of oral tradition. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's okay, I'm not experienced either, having only become interested in it earlier this year. I'd recommend skimming through Jan Vansina's Oral tradition as history [8] if you're interested, other than that it's fairly straightforward tbh Kowal2701 (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I can’t believe I said this, dunning kruger Kowal2701 (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good day! I noticed you reverted my grammar correction on the Russo-Japanese War article as a "mistaken edit." I changed the word "deep" to "deeply" as it was being used as an adverb, modifying the verb "sank." I don't believe this is wrong, but in the spirit of WP:BRD I'd like to hear your perspective. —ME_isSCAMMER (scam) 20:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the enquiry. Perhaps usage differs from country to country - mine is UK usage. "Deeply" sounded wrong to me and adjectival use in the case under discussion appears to be supported here and allowed when discussed at Free Dictionary. Perhaps calling the edit "mistaken" was too strong, but on WP the usual consensus is that if something isn't broken, then leave it alone. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your talk-page and edit history show that you have made many erroneous reversions. Please stop reverting legitimate edits, especially by longstanding editors. Thank you. milladrive (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi - I recently came across the IP editor 128.92.53.134 and saw that most of their edits had been reverted by yourself, often with quite pointy/accusatory edit summaries. From looking at their edits, all seemed to be made as earnest attempts to improve the articles, but in your reversions have been called "vandalism", "ignorance" and "needless". I also noted that despite reverting 9 of their 13 edits, you haven't posted anything on their talk page.

Some examples:

• Copy editing a comma into a period (to match the same format as the poem directly above) - reverted as "vandalism" [9]
• Comparing a winged unicorn to "a Pegasus" instead of simply "Pegasus" - reverted as "ignorance" - [10]
• Reverted a change of "Willio and Phillio" to "Willio & Phillio" [11], despite the duo officially using the ampersand [12] [13] - no explanation on reverting edit summary
• Listing traditional folk songs as having a "Traditional" authorship - reverted as vandalism (which I cannot understand) [14] [15] [16]

I know you are an experienced editor so I am sure you have seen WP:BITE - but I think it might be a good idea to re-read it, as these edits did not in any way comprise "vandalism", and definitely didn't require going through their account to nuke their contributions. BugGhost🦗👻 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I've just seen that you've rv'd all the additions and clarifications I'd made to the French sonnets section as not being sufficiently sourced (primary sources wouldn't count). I see here that you belong to the category of punctilious contributors who essentially contribute by cutting out other people's work. OK, fair enough. I'm a specialist in the field and it's the quality of my English that might be the problem. If I have time I'll add secondary sources, of which there are plenty given the trivial nature of my corrections and additions. Have a nice cut-out day! Petrus Iustinus (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Petrus Iustinus, the idea of these short language summaries is not to name every sonnet writer, but only those who carry the form forward in some significant way. From this point of view, Aragon and Valéry might be worth mentioning for their critical work, but not every writer of note who happened to write a few. And besides, you've ignored Robert Marteau's important sonnet journal series Liturgie of the 1990s. Sweetpool50 (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited An Academic Question, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Bayley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sweetpool. Can you please explain what about the following you consider to be WP:OR?

Hesiod also outlines how the end of man's Golden Age (an all-male society of immortals who were reverent to the gods, worked hard, and ate from abundant groves of fruit) was brought on by Prometheus. When he stole Fire from Mt. Olympus and gave it to mortal man, Zeus punished the male-only society by creating a woman. Thus, Pandora was created and given the jar (mistranslated as 'box') which releases all evils upon man.^[1]

You do agree that, according to Hesiod, Pandora was the first woman, right?

Thanks, Paul August ☎ 12:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've little time just at present, but enough to go over the opening episodes of Works and Days, where I do not find myself in accord with your reasoning, especially that Pandora is the first woman. It's something Hesiod does not say, let alone calling human society pre-technological. Reading the account, I find Prometheus called the son of Iapetus, and later in the parable of the Silver Age there is mention of a child "brought up at his good mother's side". Now I know from past experience that you are a respecter of WP:RS and therefore not a fan of fly-by editors advancing their own constuctions of dimly remembered ancient myths without supporting evidence. I therefore hope that we can agree on deleting nonsense and WP:OR where we come upon it. Sweetpool50 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for interjecting here, but, to be clear, the change in question is the replacement of technologically advanced with male-only, which you reverted twice, first for it being unhe[l]pful opinionation, [17] and then for it being WP:OR and unsourced. [18] You did then remove the technologically advanced phrase with the edit summary rv more WP:OR, Hesiod does not mention a technologically advanced society, [19] but it was WP:OR which you had just reverted two editors to restore. Having said this, I am sceptical of this paragraph as a whole; a cursory look at Van Noorden's Playing Hesiod, the most detailed treatment of the "myth of the races" I'm aware of, would seem to indicate that there is a lack of scholarly consensus as to the degree to which the Prometheus-Pandora narrative and the "myth of the races" are congruent. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Michael Aurel: That's interesting. I don't have access to Van Noorden's book. Can you give more detail about what Van Noorden says? Thanks Paul August ☎ 14:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing! I might leave the message over at Talk:Pandora to allow others to more readily participate. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, good idea, I probably should have initiated this discussion there. Paul August ☎ 16:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's forget reversions done under pressure and in haste and concentrate now on Hesiod's text (the subject of that section). To me the "myth of the races" sounds like yet another red herring in that context. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, the reversions are of relevance, as the removal of "male-only", was, I assume, what led Paul to leave his initial comment here (and your response didn't really seem to me to reflect this). If you are under pressure or don't have much time to look into things (both entirely understandable conditions), then probably the best idea is just not to revert. As to the paragraph itself, from what I can tell, the relationship between the two myths is a matter of scholarly disagreement; the issue evidently isn't clear-cut. Perhaps the three of us (or anyone interested) could work at Talk:Pandora to draft a better version of the paragraph. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I respectfully disagree that the example I added recently to this fable's page was unhelpful or misplaced. The tale's appearance in the records of the Tuyuhun in modern day Qinghai, China is an example of its 'travel eastward'. And the Book of Wei, compiled in the 6th century, represents an appropriate time period in the context of the section. Sertheta (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sertheta, it was misplaced because you simply dumped your assertion between instances cited from Greater Bulgaria and the Turkic langauges, which doesn't make geographical sense. Then you gave a Chinese language source which most users of the English Wikipedia cannot verify. In any case, according to WP:RS the source must say that the story to which you refer is indeed a version of the tale under discussion. Describing you edit as misplaced and unhelpful states the obvious and all that you assert above is no more than WP:OR. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems natural to me that this tale should be placed after "the story also travelled eastwards", a clause essentially identifying the Bulgarian example as European. If you think this organization doesn't make sense geographically, then it doesn't make sense as is either, and you should probably have corrected it when reverting. And I placed my example in front of the Turkic manuscripts because it predates written Turkish by centuries, thus organizing this part first by geography, then in chronological order. In any event it is trivial for anyone to adjust such a simple recounting of examples, and it wouldn't warrant a reversion.

As for the verification part, I have provided the original text precisely for the ease of verification. I guess I might as well remove the text and simply point the reference to the Book of Wei itself, which is freely available on Wikisource. Or perhaps this webpage with a built-in Classical Chinese lexicon, so that users can verify the story ("阿豺有子二十人") themselves. Sertheta (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply