User talk:Sweetpool50

Welcome!

Hello, Sweetpool50, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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) 00:22, 19 November 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]

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]

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) 02:51, 24 November 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