User talk:WikiParker

I have been employed by institutions of public higher education in multiple MA counties, and I believe this may have led to my incorrect belief about the holiday. I will fix it. --zandperl 02:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some extensive work on this article over the last month and would appreciate feedback on it. I would like this article to be a 'recommended article' for Wikiproject Massachusetts. Please put feedback on the Acton talk page so others can comment, too. Thank-you.

--LWV Roadrunner 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions to The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. However, your contributions lack sources, and it would be a big help if you could cite your references, particularly about the title. Furthermore, I removed the following paragraphs, as I felt they were not in compliance with WP:NPOV: "There is irony in the name "J. Alfred Prufrock" as it starts out somewhat pompous but "Prufrock" lends a comedic element to the name rather than one of dignity.

The is further irony in the "Love Song" portion of the title as Prufrock never states a love nor does he imagine the mermaids at the end of the poem singing to him." For more information on how to cite sources, see WP:CITE. Thanks. --Samael775 18:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding something to it :) I'm just trying to beat back the crazy Disney Fans :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in adding {{User distributed proofreaders}} or {{User:Scepia/Project Gutenberg}} to your user page. Andrew Sly 03:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] My edit was reverting anon vandal, not itself vandalism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comments on Talk:Benjamin Pierce (governor). If you think the information is questionable, I would urge you to be bold, and remove or rephrase it. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. I take the table for another article and changed the informations about Agnes. Sorry, my mistake.

I know, that Agnes was born and died 1911. Her mother was 43 when her youngest child was born. That could be a reason, why the girl died at the age of eight ours. --AndreaMimi (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I didn't realize I forgot to mention it. I'll add the book now. Red4tribe (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I'd ask you this. Do you think the Battle Bunker Hill should be included in casualties since it was during the siege? Red4tribe (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re your changing Richard Prescott's rank in Battle of Bunker Hill: different pages appear to be inconsistent on Prescott's specific rank when he was captured. William Barton (soldier) (from whence I copied the rank) says "Major General". Richard Prescott is a bit confused about his rank, implying he was a brigadier general in 1775, but a colonel later, and promoted after his capture to major general. (Not being a military type, I assume brigadier general outranks colonel.) Prescott Farm calls him General, as does Charles Lee (general), the officer for whom he was exchanged.

The exact rank is not something I've verified in any sources (nor do I really plan to), but I thought you'd like to know this. Magic♪piano 12:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Peter (novelist), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: John Peter. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to The Criterion article. I was worried that it would be of no interest to anyone and I don't know enough about it to do much more. BTW, I created the original article as Criterion, which was how I first came across it, but most sources I've come across since use The Criterion, so I moved it. Trouble is, I've since come across other references leaving out the definite article. Can you confirm, either way? Look forward to reading more. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there is a picture of the cover here which clearly shows the "The": http://www.nyrm.org/2007/sabloff_well.html --Technopat (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit! BTW, for those awkward symbols which you may not have on your keyboard, I usually recommend a simple copy & paste - usually works. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the recent copyediting and the rest over at the Four Quartets page. Normally, I work with a few copyeditors to help take care of those things, as I don't have enough time to dedicate to a very close and careful copyedit myself. Unfortunately, I have not had any available for the pages. Your work was definitely needed. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I spoke too soon - This shows that you acted improperly. If you noticed, the lines are cited. Adding such templates to cited paragraphs is inappropriate use of templates and is considered vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking the article over. It's my first article of any substance, and I'd appreciate any suggestions. I have considered embedding an image of the OpenStreetMap (Egg Rock Concord map.svg) but then it will not reflect updates which may be made within OSM. I'll be looking into ways to embed a "live" map as time permits. Thanks again... --Paul Knight (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are able to take a look at Egg Rock and clear the "new article" tag when appropriate. Thanks! (or suggest if I should look for other reviewer(s) ??)--Paul Knight (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiParker. I feel that the Woolf quote adds a lot to the reception of Eliot's decision in the literary context. It speaks to his sense of isolation as a religious man and a Catholic in modernist times. I'd vote to put it back. Didn't want to rv your edit without discussing it.... Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Boston Common, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soldiers and Sailors Monument (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, anytime. It's good to see someone notice the small corner of Wikipedia I inhabit. Seeing that we have a shared interest in all things Eliot, do you want to team up to do a revision of the T.S. Eliot and related articles over the next few weeks? Bring a few of them up to FA/GA status.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comments at Talk:The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.

With all due respect, I'm not really seeing the urgent necessity of these personal preference format discussions. I spent 45 minutes formulating a response to your comments--45 minutes that I could have spent watching part of Season 3 of Mad Men, or (God portend) actually add something to the article. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On another issue, your 2006 comments on the Prufrock talk page about putting all the cultural references/in popular culture material in one well-sectioned "Cultural references to T.S. Eliot" article instead of having a myriad of small articles would be something I'd like to explore/discuss further. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YOU AND I

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/donoghue-words.html

There is a minor difficulty with "you." Eliot told Kristian Smidt that the "you" is "merely some friend or companion, presumably of the male sex, whom the speaker is at that moment addressing, and that it has no emotional content whatever." But in an interview in 1962 he said that Prufrock was a man of about forty and in part himself and that he was using the theory of the split personality. This is a better hint, especially as it allows us to take "you" as a second self removed from the first—as in Conrad's "The Secret Sharer"—and fulfilling another mode of being, admonitory though silent. It is typical of Eliot to exert critical pressure on the matter in hand by establishing another scale of reference, another perspective. But some of the invocations to "you" in "Prufrock" are perfunctory, they hardly mean more than "one." It is hard to believe that the "We" at the end, "We have lingered ...," includes more than Prufrock's sole if notional self. I take it as a last flourish of the plural of majesty before the drowning.

https://tidsskrift.dk/index.php/Orbis_Litterarum/article/download/51491/95075

Point of View in T. S. Eliot’s Poetry by Kristian Smidt

Various attempts have been made to solve the riddle of Prufrock’s interlocutor. The simplest and probably the most satisfactory explanation is that he is merely the confidant who is needed to make the monologue a dramatic one, one of the minor dramatis personae, intrinsically unimportant but useful in giving the main character an opportunity to speak. And this interpretation is supported by Mr. Eliot in the following remarks in a letter to the present writer:

  As for THE LOVE SONG OF J. ALFRED PRUFROCK anything I say now must be somewhat   conjectural, as it was written so long ago that my memory may deceive me; but I am   prepared to assert that the ‘you’ in THE LOVE SONG is merely some friend or companion,   presumably of the male sex, whom the speaker is at that moment addressing, and that it has   no emotional content whatever. I shall be glad if this simplifies the problem, because I have   recently seen some quite astonishing over-interpretations of this poem. 

Interviewed in Grantite Review, 24, no. 3, 1962, p. 17 Eliot said of Prufrock:

  "It was partly a dramatic creation of a man of about 40 I should say, and partly   an expression of feelings of my own through this dim imaginary figure." 

Sigg, Eric W. The American T.S. Eliot : a study of the early writings. Cambridge England New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. ^: 242

  * ISBN:9780521110037    * Publication date:April 2009 

See http://books.google.com/books?id=10rEHo-28O4C&pg=PA242

Later in the interview Eliot said:

  "I always feel that dramatic characters who seem living creations have something of the author in them." 

Bush, Ronald. T.S. Eliot, a study in character and style. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. ISBN:0-19-503726-X pp. 241-42

Grantite Review, 24, no. 3 (1962), 16-20. Grantite Review (house magazine of Grant's, Westminster School) http://www.oldwestminster.org.uk

Your edit of the Commandant of the Coast Guard article, while well meaning and informative is beyond the scope of the article. I would suggest that the award of the Congressional Gold Medal be expanded in the article Ellsworth P. Bertholf and that a picture of the medal be included in the Alaska section of the article. The scope of the Commandant of the Coast Guard article is to better inform the reader with actions by the Commandants during their tour that they were noted for. The award of the medal did not occur during Bertholf's tour as Commandant. None of the other notes about other Commandants list things that occurred outside their tour. Please consider improving the individual article on Bertholf and removing the material from the Commandant of the Coast Guard article. I did a major rewrite of the Ellsworth P. Bertholf a couple of years back, and looking at my work today, I would say that I could have improved the article with more about the Medal. An image has become available since I did my edits on the article. Would you care to edit the Bertholf article and include a rewrite of the details under the Alaska section? Contact me on my Talk page with your thought on the subject... Cuprum17 (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've edited articles associated with T.S. Eliot and his works, I wanted to raise your attention to the FAC nomination for "A Song for Simeon", Eliot's 1928 poem. I would be grateful for your comments, suggestions, and critique there to improve the article. The FAC nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Song for Simeon/archive1. Many thanks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Dick Whittington and His Cat may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Image:Guildhall 20130324 132.JPG|thumb|left|upright|Dick Whittington and His Cat, a statue in the [[

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - have just seen your query on Lucas & Eliot. Have replied on the Lucas Talk page. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have now added a 'Lucas & Eliot' subsection to the article, in answer to your query. - Regards.

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

Rickard

added a link pointing to Richards

Rickards

added a link pointing to Richards

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rick,
I was looking today at the Wikisource rendition of The Waste Land, and noticed a problem in line 42. (There might also be others; I was only trying to recall the opening of the poem.) I left a note here at Wikipedia for User:StephenDaedalus, but I suspect he is inactive, and won't see it. Then I noticed that you are also involved with the Gutenberg Project, which also contains the same misprint. Here's the text of what I had left for StephenDaedalus:

• I've added a Discussion note to Wikisource's rendition of the Horace Liveright edition of The Waste Land pointing out an important misprint in that edition. I notice you have responded to an earlier post a few years ago, but otherwise I'm not sure if anyone would ever look at that page without having been notified; and I would never notice any response to me except here at Wikipedia. Thanks for any help. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• == Misprint in Horace Liveright edition ==

The first word in line 42 of the Horace Liveright edition is misspelled as "Od'". Subsequent editions correct this error with "Oed'", which is Eliot's English rendition of Wagner's "Öd'", from Tristan und Isolde. Also, the entire line "Oed' und leer das Meer." should properly be italicized Oed und leer das Meer. – so that is actually two separate misprints in the line. The preceding quatrain Frisch weht der Wind / Der Heimat zu / Mein Irisch Kind, / Wo weilest du? is properly italicized. (Line 42 is correctly left-aligned, whereas the quatrain is also correctly indented.)

I'm not familiar with Wikisource's protocol on indicating errors in sources, but it would seem that line 42 ought to be footnoted, and a corrected line given. One concern is if a reader tries to read that line aloud, the pronunciation of Od will certainly be "odd". Milkunderwood (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For any response to me, please reply at Wikipedia; I would never think to look at Wikisource. Thanks. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking around now online, I find some sources with Oed, and others with Öd – I have no idea which of those two spellings would be more "authentic" for what Eliot actually wrote, but I suspect the German Wagnerian form. In Eliot's own recording of the poem (which I no longer have) he definitely pronounces the word as it was intended to be said, with either the umlaut or the "e". And the missing umlaut makes much more sense as a printing error. The edition I'm looking at now is Collected Poems of T. S. Eliot, Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1930, which gives the Oed form.
I also have no idea whether a misprint in Gutenberg can be annotated; but both ought to be if either is possible to be done. Milkunderwood (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Wagner was fond of exclamations(!) – and in the 19th C. would have used the proper umlaut rather than the bastardized "oe" form. Poetically it makes sense that Eliot would have changed the exclamation to a period; and if you listen to him reading it, that line is a quiet comment. In the meantime, until you might have a chance to find the Ricks and McCue, do you know of any way to annotate either the Wikisource or Gutenberg? Regardless of its spelling, the sound of that "Od" – whether you're reading aloud or just to yourself – strikes me as being a showstopper, where you say "What?!" Milkunderwood (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, thanks, for your sorry since I don't own anything. I am still learning; I don't display mentor. Would you please improve this Thomas Compbell and such onse? SwordOfRobinHood (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I see it, thanks for fixing. I always thought that was a minuteman. I had read somewhere they regarded themselves as the second American Revolution. SlightSmile 12:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The file File:Princess Stephanie of Belgium 1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]