User talk:Rwood128

Welcome!

Hello, Rwood128, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Victuallers (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to undo your edit to European walking route E4. You should study the links above to familiarise yourself with editing on Wikipedia first.

In particular I noticed the following:

• No capitals all words, not even in headers.
• Headers consist of two = signs, like this == Header == ,not one.
• Do not forget to add a references section together with adding the first references to an article, like this

== References == {{Reflist}} 

Debresser (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Wales Barnstar
		An overdue thank you for your great expansion on Welsh literature in English. Diolch. FruitMonkey (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Modernism. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Calabe1992 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before engaging in a prolonged edit war at Modernism perhaps read WP:IDON'TLIKEIT - use the talk page first to discuss the changes that you propose. At the moment consensus is against your changes...Modernist (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Solid work on the expressionism article, that's been in need of it for awhile. Nicely done. I had one question about the new sentence: "What, however, can be said, is "that it was a movement that developed in the early twentieth-century mainly in Germany in reaction to the dehumanizing affect of industrialization and the growth of cities, and that one of the central means by which expressionism identifies itself as an avante-garde movement, and by which it marks its distance to traditions and the cultural institution as a whole is through its relationship to realism and the dominant conventions of representation."" Are you sure that it's "affect" and not "effect" in the original? I can understand how "affect" would make sense, but "effect" would be equally likely in the context, and I just wanted to make sure that wasn't a typo. Sindinero (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Weymouth, Dorset. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Charles (talk) 08:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating British regional literature, Rwood128!

Wikipedia editor Kieranian2001 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

reviewed seems fine

To reply, leave a comment on Kieranian2001's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

I had to remove the images from the article as they are non-free rationale images. Images that are not pre-1928 or uploaded from a Wikipedian's own camera can not be used, sorry. FruitMonkey (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would just delete the writers who are not postmodern, it can always be reverted. The list is a mess. Writers were added by editors who thought 'postmodern' means 'writing after 1910'. To make any meaningful sense every entry needs a solid reference. Adding question marks is not meaningful in the WP repertoire and will just add to later confusion. Go for it. 12:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'll remove the question marks, which reflect my lack of certainty and knowledge about postmodernism. I'll delete the names suggested in the list previously posted. There may also be some fairly minor postmodernists listed, but I'm only speculating. Rwood128 (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Also, you don't need to delete one at a time - you can take out as many as you want, or many other changes, in one edit with a clear edit summary. It comes under the heading of being bold. You are entirely in the right. I confess I had given up on the list as it was such a mess and needs citations. I would have voted for its deletion. I am glad you are cleaning it up. Span (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list was probably split off from the main article. You would probably find opposers to reducing the list to a redirect. I think the list would serve a function if accurate and cited. WP likes lists as long as they make an effort. Some great lists are featured here. The main post modern article is also a mess (in my book) and almost entirely without refs. These articles covering big subject areas are often thankless and hard to knock into shape. I think you're doing well. Don't be disheartened - it's all ongoing work. Best wishes Span (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have reverted your edits to various decades today. Could you explain more fully what the purpose of them were? I see no issue with the content you removed in reference to WP:RY. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I wanted to invite you to the new William Blake Task Force. This new task force will help organizes and coordinates Wikipedia's coverage of Romantic poet and artist William Blake. In Fall 2013, I, User:Sadads, will be having a WP:GLAM internship with The William Blake Archive, and has started the project to organize and support efforts to improve content related to William Blake, the collection of The William Blake Archive and other topics related to Blake's contributions to both literary and visual culture. Some of your previous contributions indicate an interest in Blake, so I wanted to invite you to the project! Hope you join us and happy editing! Sadads (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - me again. If you're developing new ideas and aren't certain how to proceed, it's a lot better to try them out in your own userspace (put something like [[/testing]]) on your user page, then follow the redlink to create a safe testing area for yourself) than to tweak a live article many times ... All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion of this topic on the article's talk page, feel free to reply there (not on personal talk pages). The article may be salvageable but it is currently headed in a wrong direction. The discussion suggests what needs to be done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Hiking Award of Merit
	For all of your great contributions to hiking-related articles: a Hiking Award of Merit! —hike395 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've become somewhat obsessive, when I should be hiking/snowshoeing.Rwood128 (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on all the great work you've put into expanding this article. One thing, though, could be please take a closer look at the references in the article and take some pains to make your new references match them is style? In particular, names of authors should be last name first ("library style"). Refs from websites should be preceded by the name of the website, but followed by it, with the name of the page inside the link, as in:

• [http://example.com/This-is-the-name-of-the-article.html "This is the name of the article"] on the ''Example'' website

Dates are placed in parens, without the day of the week, such as (December 23, 2013). Names of periodicals are italicized, as in ''[[New York Times]]'', and so on. I'm sure if you take a look at the refs you'll get the idea.

Thanks, BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I was feeling a little guilty about someone having to tidy my edits. I'll try and slow down and check more carefully! Sorry about that. Rwood128 (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No big problem. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note for you on my talk page User talk:CorinneSD.CorinneSD (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that you have a copy of the original newsletter containing the full article, rather than the extract shown on the Powys Society website? Deb (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the quotation in question isn't in the extract from the article shown on the website although it is quoted on the website. What I'm asking is whether you have the original full article and the quotation isn't present there either? If you have, then obviously you are correct. If you haven't, then the website is a good enough reference to support its being in the original article. Deb (talk) 08:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I just wanted to clarify. Obviously I'm not going to "die in a ditch" over it. :-) Deb (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, are you by any chance a member of the Thomas Hardy Society? Deb (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondered, as I'm hoping to go to some of their events this year. Deb (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the changes you are making, but a word of caution. There are editors on here who will accuse you of "original research" for reporting facts without references. I started trying to add background because someone tagged the plot summary as being too long, and I'm glad someone has come along who has the appropriate knowledge of Powys's life and body of work. Those aspects of the article need to be emphasized. Deb (talk) 08:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Congratulations for your great work. Please note this ([1]). Cheers. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The merge proposal seems like a good idea, but why blank the content? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

".. where Thomas Hardy's heart was buried and where poet C. Day-Lewis arranged to be buried." - I'm not convinced that is grammatically correct! An unusual situation, obviously. But I thought it looked better with "himself" added on the end. Surely "buried" there is a reflexive verb? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rwood128,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Waymarking (disambiguate) for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading your latest edit to John Cowper Powys, and I saw this:

"these isle".

Is "isle" supposed to be singular? CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, yes, I misread the talk page thread as you retracting the merge proposal. I've put the templates back up. --McGeddon (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been working on John Cowper Powys. That's great! I've made a few minor copy-edits. I wanted to ask you about two things, both in the section John Cowper Powys#Wessex novels:

1) The second sentence in the fifth paragraph, the paragraph that begins "A Glastonbury Romance" reads:

"According to Powys's this novel's "heroine is the Grail", and its central concern is with the various myths and legends along with history associated with Glastonbury."

(a) You will see that "According to Powys's" contains an error. However, before simply deleting the apostrophe s (and adding a comma), I thought I'd point it out to you just in case the original text (your own, another editor's, or a source) contained a name or noun (such as "biographer") after "Powys's" and it got inadvertently left out. If not, and it was really "According to Powys" himself, then the apostrophe and "s" have to be deleted.

(b) In the phrase, "its central concern is with the various myths and legends along with history associated with Glastonbury", I think the phrasing in "the various myths and legends along with history associated with Glastonbury" is a little wordy, and it slows down the flow of the sentence. Unless it is absolutely necessary to separate "history" from "myths and legends", I would make the sentence more concise as follows:

"its central concern is with the myths, legends, and history associated with Glastonbury".

2) The third paragraph, which is one long sentence, reads:

"All the same, despite his indebtedness to the Victorian novel and his enthusiasm for Hardy and Walter Scott, as well as for lesser figures such as Ainsworth, Powys was clearly a modernist, with affinities also with Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Friedrich Nietzsche, Walter Pater, Marcel Proust, Carl Gustav Jung, Sigmund Freud, D. H. Lawrence, James Joyce, Dorothy Richardson, and the T. S. Eliot of The Waste Land."

(a) After "with affinities also with" we see a long list of names with whom Powys had affinities as a writer. However, the last item in the list is a name plus a title of one work: "the T. S. Eliot of The Waste Land". This breaks up the parallel structure already established. Is it vital to include "of The Waste Land"? Is this somehow identifying a changed T. S. Eliot, or T. S. Eliot at a particular period in his life? If it is not absolutely necessary, I would remove "of The Waste Land". (I notice that there is additional information about Eliot's influence on Powys toward the end of the fifth paragraph.)

(b) Also, in that initial prepositional phrase, "with affinities also with", you've got "with" two times. It would be good to figure out a way to avoid that. Perhaps change it to "with affinities also to". If "with" before the names is better, then perhaps change the prepositional phrase to a clause:

"All the same, despite his indebtedness to the Victorian novel and his enthusiasm for Hardy and Walter Scott, as well as for lesser figures such as Ainsworth, Powys was clearly a modernist who had affinities with..." CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Rwood. Would you mind if I offer another suggestion? The following sentence is found in John Cowper Powys#Late novels:

"The novels that followed Porius are more minor in scale and an element of fantasy is a special characteristic of them."

This sentence is not grammatically wrong but is not especially elegant. Perhaps one of the following would be better:

• More minor in scale, the novels that followed Porius are characterized by an element of fantasy.

or:

• More minor in scale, the novels that followed Porius contain an element of fantasy.

or:

• The novels that followed Porius, more minor in scale than his previous novels, are characterized by an element of fantasy.

Cheers, CorinneSD (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I felt the repetition was a worry, without really wishing to make a hard and fast rule about how long a lead could be. It was well past bedtime. Sorry if I was too sudden. I'm glad you were amused.

1. I should have left "short-story writer", presumably important in his case, although most novelists write short stories. I would call that essential lead information.

2. Whether his physical whereabouts would be important enough for the lead, I'm not sure. I think Boy should be up there, though, because Faulkner praised it and it was banned for obscenity, two years after Lady Chatterley, incidentally. I would leave the rest of the bibliographical and critical information for the body of the article. The bibliography itself is excellent, don't you think? Although I haven't checked it against the British Library Catalogue.

3. I think the page puffs Hanley up too much and could be condensed. He's largely forgotten, despite the kind things other writers said. That's an interesting fate, if quite a common one. I read Boy not long ago and was not too impressed.

5. If you felt like doing a complete rewrite, it might make sense to separate his "==Life==" from his "==Works==". More about Boy and the art of being banned if you needed it: [2]. Although this seems to be a publisher's site, which is suspect, it might slip under the net.

6. If you did do a rewrite, then I would call that the first task, after which the lead would write itself. As a reformed journalist I find getting that cool, factual, encyclopaedic approach the hardest thing.

Wishing you well in your work, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It reads very well now. Excellent. Bmcln1 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your edits on historical fiction article. Many thanks for your valuable contribution to it! Can you please help and do some more work on the article? I tried redirecting historical novel into the fiction maintheme and putting historical dramas and TV series as well as comics, but I still need your help... or someone else' for that matter.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

I've stormed out with some "glorius" edits on historical fiction. Follow them out!

The Mad Hatter (talk)

Great edits the last day, but I don't like that the lists are with subheadings. It seems a bit over the top. I will trim them out to ";", if you don't mind. If you don't like it and revert - I will comply, but I think that lesser subheadings in the article it is better.

Regards:The Mad Hatter (talk)

@Rwood128: Hey, I would like to ask you why are you italicizing all the books? Only series should be italicized while the single books - not. Would you like to do it that way?

Regards:The Mad Hatter (talk)

Hello, many thanks for your considerable work on the Trail page. I was wondering if you'd consider a couple of other projects; I've been thinking for a long time that there should be a Trail centre/Trail center. Also, the page Trail riding reads very poorly in my opinion, and would benefit from quality editing. No pressure, just suggestions  :)

Thanks again for your work. Obscurasky (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, for your improvements to the Trail riding page. Obscurasky (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. About the categorization of Royal Parks of London and other London-related pages, I explain: this time I removed only the main Category:London, and not the other one (parks and open spaces in LND) that I removed 2 days ago. Well, as you can see, the category of London, as for the well-structured categories with hundreds of subcategories, has only the article London and not a series of random articles. This is also due to the fact that I follow several categories about cities from 2009, trying to find their deeper subcategories. It's only a normal and technical maintenance work. Anyway, a category so well comlexly structured and developed (and important) as "London" may work in that was. Just for example, a category as "France" may only contain France, because it is a choice of thousands of subcategories. About the other category you placed "parks and open spaces in London", I left it. I controlled that category and, effectively, it seems to be structured to host also pages with their own subcat: it's a set category. Ok, hoping to have well explained this technical/maintenance issue, I wish you good work for your good work (I've seen). Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished hacking now. Let's use talk:Linear park to discuss further. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re Ireland, that old horse has been round the course so many times that there is a Manual of Style for it, see ref in my edit comment. If it offends your eye, change UK to UK of GB and NI.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that not realising that you had reverted again, so I guess you didn't see my edit note. It's at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#Use of ''Ireland'' and ''Republic of Ireland''. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I've been there, done that, still have the bruises from blindly walking into this minefield in the past! Just to make life entertaining, the island and the state are both formally 'Ireland'. 'Republic of' is "a supplementary description for disambiguation when necessary" (this is in the real world beyond wp).

Let's just hope now that there are no LPs in Macedonia/Republic of Macedonia/Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia because that is an even bigger maelstrom with no sign whatever of compromise. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add: 'Britain' is a legal and valid term for 'the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. There is no challenge to that (except, I suppose, Roman Britain which was only England and Wales). NB British Isles is another minefield! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that I've walked into the "Everybody knows that ..." trap with 'Britain'. If the OED says it's informal then I'm sure it's true. But it is very heavily used.

There is a useful legal term becoming more used on Wp: 'British Islands', which includes the IoM and CIs in addition to the UK (of GB and NI). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Rwood! :) Have a great time! You are making fantastic edits!

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

A few of us have been discussing a re-working of the article Landscape. See Talk:Landscape#Discussion from my talk. One, User:Zaereth, has begun the trimming that was discussed, which I applaud. I'm wondering whether you would like to write a section or two such as "Landscape in (or and) literature", "Landscape in (or and) novels", or "Landscape in (or and) poetry". If you have any other ideas for creating a better article, please feel free to add them to the discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	Smile
	Smiley - Monkey. Hafspajen (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what I have misunderstood at Jonathan Swift? See [3]. CorinneSD (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from being an expert on adding images to articles, but I have learned a lot by reading WP:Picture tutorial. Information specifically on formatting galleries is at WP:Picture tutorial#Galleries. One more way to learn how to add, place, and size images is to look at the formatting of images in an article or on a talk page in edit mode. Sometimes you can copy the formatting and paste it after the file name of another image that you want to add. CorinneSD (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to Native American use of fire. I'm planning to read it, but after just a glance at the article, I saw those large, blue "pull quotes" around a quote. I know from reading MOS:Blockquote that pull quotes are reserved for when the material in the quote is "pulled" from -- that is, appears in -- the text of the article. Otherwise, it should be formatted as a block quote with the blockquote template. I changed the template, but it left something wrong with the reference at the end of it. I don't know how to fix it, and I was wondering if you could do that. CorinneSD (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD I think it's fixed -- though perhaps you will delete my brackets? Rwood128 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading some of the article on Romantic poetry, and I came across a sentence that had some problems. I left a comment at Talk:Romantic poetry#A sentence needs work. Maybe you can figure it out and fix it. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwood. I've been looking at these two sentences that appear in the middle of the first paragraph in Landscape#The Romantic era in Britain:

• From the 18th century, a taste for the sublime in landscape emerged alongside the sublime in language. An earlier topographical poem that influenced the romantics, was James Thomson's The Seasons (1726-30).

There are some things that are not clear to me in these sentences. Please don't take this as a criticism. I'm kind of "thinking out loud".

(a) In the first sentence, it's not clear what is meant by "landscape" in "a taste for the sublime in landscape". Is it the real physical landscape of England, the landscape in painting, or both?

(b) I know I added the word "alongside" (probably to replace a word that was less clear), but even that word is not completely clear. Perhaps "along with" would be better, or "simultaneously with", or re-word it so that you say what actually occurred in "language" -- and do you really mean "language", or should this be "literature"?

(c) In the second sentence, I don't understand the use of the comparative "earlier". Earlier than what? And, if this poem influenced the romantics (I assume you mean Romantic poets), then it was written before the Romantic era got underway, and thus is not an example of the new type of poetry. I'm just asking, because it follows a sentence that speaks of the emergence of the sublime in language/literature. CorinneSD (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that it broke up the title "Mrs. Dalloway", what do you think of this edit? [4] CorinneSD (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD is this better? For information relating to DeSalvo's claim that Woolf suffered sexual abuse, see Williams, L. C. A. (2014)

Well, I think the first sentence ("Controversially,...") makes it clear that Woolf did suffer sexual abuse as a child. I don't think that is just a claim. I think what is controversial in DeSalvo's work is the effect this had on her life and work. (See the sixth paragraph in Virginia Woolf#Early Life.) This editor, Tracy Miller, suggests this effect is not as controversial as that sentence about DeSalvo seems to say. I'm just wondering about adding a reference to another book: "For information on DeSalvo's claim..., see [another book]." Is this normal for a WP article? I thought usually the other writer would be quoted or paraphrased. Well, if it is all right, I would just change "For information on" to "For further information on" or "For further reading on", and I would change "DeSalvo's claim" to "DeSalvo's ideas" or "DeSalvo's arguments". CorinneSD (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD I realised later that I probably hadn't looked closely enough at the original. I don't know about WP practice but I'd turn it into a note (I mean a real note, not a citation). Your proposed changes sound good: ' For more information on DeSalvo's views on the sexual abuse suffered by Woolf see …' Rwood128 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I know this isn't your particular area of interest, but I thought you might be able to help. I was looking at the latest edit to Tilia at [5], which is actually the editor's correction to the previous edit. Then I looked through the article and saw that not only is there a formatting error in that line, but there is some inconsistency in the formatting of two foreign language poems, each of which is accompanied by a translation.

• Regarding the latest addition to the article, the line seems all right (but a little short; maybe more of the poem should have been included?), and I don't know which of the editor's two versions is more correct (capitalization, etc.).

CorinneSD

In her room at the prow of the house

Where light breaks, and the windows are tossed with linden,

My daughter is writing a story.

In my opinion it would be better to quote this whole verse – the first verse in fact.

• The two poems with translation are in the section Tilia#Romantic symbol. While it may have been created with a table, no table lines are showing between lines or between the original and the translation. The second poem with translation was clearly made with a table. Don't you think these two poems should be formatted in a consistent manner? Which arrangement do you prefer?

The first is the only way! And surely poetry should be centred, if possible?

• Third (and this is a minor point), there is a lot of white space after the bulleted list in Tilia#History. Is there any way to reduce that space? CorinneSD (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved two images into the gallery, because they were the cause of the problem – but they may nor really belong there, you can better judge.

Rwood128 (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the formatting of the second poem-with-translation so it matches the first poem-with-translation. I wish there were a way to indent each poem a little from the left margin and put a little more space between each poem and its translation (they're awfully close). I added the lines to the Wilbur poem (does it need a reference?). I think we'd better ask Hafspajen about the images. Hafs, read above. CorinneSD (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. That's a scary layout. Why two big galleries like that? Hafspajen (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean there is plenty of place to spread out those pictures. One makes galleries when there is no more place to put the pictures. And why Eminescu of all people? Hafspajen (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the solution here was much better.Hafspajen (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hafs I thought it looked all right before. I had just mentioned (above, where it says, "Third...") that there was a lot of white space after the second image in Tilia#History. CorinneSD (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you are suggesting a different image, or an entirely different layout?

- CorinneSD (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafs, you know what you're doing. You don't have to ask, at least not me. CorinneSD (talk) 03:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

..OK, I can try to make it work, but it is never a good idea to have galleries that are too big in the middle of the article. Not until there is really no more space to put pictures. Hafspajen (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hafs, Rwood128 only made a gallery (or second gallery) in response to my question about the slight bit of extra white space. See my question, above. Before s/he made the gallery, the images looked all right to me (at least as far as arrangement), except for that white space in "History". I don't think s/he'd mind your either putting them back or re-arranging them. CorinneSD (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

as you will have seen I've made further edits. Hope these are acceptable. The images look much better.  

One further thing: is the article sufficiently clear with regard to the difference between linden (Tilia) and lime (Citrus)? One example: 'The lime tree is referred to in the story The Man Who Planted Trees by Jean Giono'. Is this in fact the fruit tree? Rwood128 (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But its no longer there. has certainly been ruthless! i certainly agree with what he's done. There's too much of this kind of trivia around. Rwood128 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I AM VERY SORRY: but it's not gone, it's all here: Lime tree in culture. Just made an other article. Do not despair. It's all yours to edit. Hafspajen (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so impressed that Hafspajen has made a new article, with images, in such a short time. CorinneSD (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD & Hafspajen, actually I hadn't realized how much had gone. Yes, a great job. Rwood128 (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwood128 -- Do you agree with this edit? [6] CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD what about Constance Rosalie née Bicknell? Perhaps within within brackets? That's how it's done for D. H. Lawrence. Julia Prinsep Duckworth Stephen (née Jackson, 1846–1895) is Virginia Woolf's mother. Hope this helps. Rwood128 (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I looked at several author articles, and they're not all the same in this regard. See Rudyard Kipling#Childhood (1865-1882), first sentence. CorinneSD (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD Constance Rosalie Auden, née Bicknell, according to Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd edition). Rwood128 (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Thanks. (That seems to be the form in Kipling, too.) CorinneSD (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Responded to there. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R, if you have time, would you read User talk:Rothorpe#Benjamin Haydon and comment? CorinneSD (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rwood128. We haven't met, but I noticed the fine work you've done on Middlemarch. Concise is king! Bishonen | talk 19:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, Thanks. By chance I came on the Core Contest page. Good slogan. Rwood128 (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For being such an excellent collaborator on projects like Historical fiction and Nautical fiction, and more importantly keeping other editors ambitions and language in check :) Sadads (talk) 17:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD, I recently edited the info boxes for a number of article for novels by Charles Dickens. Amongst other things I deleted the line Series Weekly: 1 December 1860 – 3 August 1861 for Great Expectations, which are dates for the serializing of the novel. My reason was that this was a misuse of the word series. These edits were speedily reverted. This is my response [7].

I'm probably being a wrong-headed here, but what is your opinion? Rwood128 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD, many thanks -- I was beginning to think that I was just tired and crotchety, and had been doing too much editing. Rwood128 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were right about "series" and "serial" or "serialization". I don't know which is better for "genre". Where did you find that infobox on Swallows and Amazons? It wasn't in the article on the series and it wasn't in the article for Arthur Ransome. I was just thinking of adding the word "by" before "Arthur Ransome" in the information about illustrations at the beginning of the infobox. CorinneSD (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD, it is for the novel Swallows and Amazons.

The descriptions for genre, on the infoboxes for many novels really irritates me, i.e. Heart of Darkness: Genre Frame story, philosophical novella. Rwood128 (talk)

Oh, no, I don't like that, either. WP is for the general reader, not for academics. Terms such as novel, short story, and maybe novella, or poem, non-fiction, etc., ought to be sufficient. CorinneSD (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Or maybe phrases such as Adventure novel, Mystery or Mystery novel, or Children's adventure story. I'm speaking generally, of course, not about Heart of Darkness. CorinneSD (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestions. I've simplified Heart of Darkness. Rwood128 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. The specific type of novel, or novella, can be discussed in the body of the article. CorinneSD (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R - I saw your recent edit to the infobox. To me, it's fine. I just wondered whether writing "1860–1" (for the serial publication) is a standard way of writing the two years. It kind of looks like "1 serial". I'm wondering whether it would be acceptable to write the years as "1860–61". Then it would be clear that it is 1860–1861. CorinneSD (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD, I'm never sure about this. This follows the University of Wales Press style sheet, because I was using that very recently. This is also what The New Fowler recommends. However, it confused you, so I'll put serial first. Thanks. But if you prefer 186O–61, I have no problem with that. Rwood128 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, putting "Serial" first removes any confusion; it is also now parallel to "book 1861" (word - date, word - date). But is "serial" used here as a noun - [a] Serial? I guess there isn't enough room to write: Published In serial form (or Serially) 1860-1, book 1861. (I'm looking at "serial" so much now I'm starting to think of cereal.) I think it's really all right now, though. CorinneSD (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either 'as a serial' or 'serialized' –– but leave book as is? I was trying to keep things as simple as possible. Hence book not 'first edition' or 'three volume book' (do you agree? –––Actually I'm now having doubts. Can a three or four volume work be called a book?). I also prefer just 'print', for the medium, rather than the longer version, 'Print, hard cover, etc.' Even audio book included, in one case! Rwood128 (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, after it appeared in serial form, the book was first published in three volumes. Perhaps that was more common then than it is now. Isn't all this explained in the article? I think it's best to keep it simple, so I would just leave it as it is now. CorinneSD (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you went with a more informative version. Looks good! CorinneSD (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in getting there. Rwood128 (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel like giving me your opinion on some edits to Marsh? First read my comment at User talk:Apokryltaros#Marsh, then my comment at User talk:CorinneSD#Marsh. I'm up against two biologists, so I may well be wrong. Please respond either here or on my talk page. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick glance, but I'm tired. I'll check in the morning, R. -- d/w on your page.Rwood128 (talk) 18:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD: Re: serial/series[8] -- I'm being driven crazy. Would you mind taking a quick look and tell me if I'm becoming senile --- if I'm not, let me know, but don't get drawn into the mire. I keep getting involved in conflicts of late -- some zen is clearly needed. R. Rwood128 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not. I've left a comment there. CorinneSD (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne I found this upsetting and felt stupid for allowing the arguing to continue for so long, rather doing some real editing. I greatly appreciate your support. I didn't really wish to involve you but you had spent time trying to improve the infobox. There's a term, from cricket, stonewalling, that might apply here. I don't think it is really worth all this hassle for a small detail, especially when the articles on Dickens' novels need work, including, for example, the lede for Great Expectatons. Rwood128 (talk) 09:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has moved to the Novel Project page [9]. I have also asked another editor, Sadads, who works on novels, to also look at this. Rwood128 (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(The first paragraph in the article on Stonewalling really needs some work, too.) CorinneSD (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very funny! Thanks again -- but not for making me blush, with the recent compliments. Anyhow, CorinneSD, call on me for editing help anytime. Rwood128 (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm looking at your most recent edits to the "Fiction" article and have some concerns:

• I'm wondering why you deleted the original sentence that actually defined what fiction is (even with a source included). Now, the lede just describes fiction overly broadly as a "literary genre, a narrative or creative account" but without any fully fleshed-out definition. Not every literary genre, narrative, etc. is fiction (in fact these categories also describe non-fiction), so this seems much less clear as a first sentence.
• Also the tag at the end of the first sentence there ("in the sense that they are fictional") does not seem to help out the lede, since the idea of fiction/fictional/fictionality is never actually defined; this makes for a circular description. Can we reinstate the original source I used (I'm happy to reword my phrasing, if that's what you found clunky, awkward, etc.)?
• The third sentence blatantly contradicts the first sentence.
• The final sentence of the lede itself seems like a particularly confusing case of unnecessary wordiness.

Please comment on my talk page in response or if you need any further clarifications on these thoughts. Thank you! Wolfdog (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was just thinking, based on your heavy focus on fiction in the specific sense of the literary genre by that name, you might be seeking the page Literary fiction. Wolfdog (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your helpful comments. I had realised that my edit needed further work, but have been preoccupied the last few days, I need further time to think about this and read more on genre. Heather Dubrow's short book Genre looks like a good beginning, as I cannot find anything useful online. I don't believe that I was looking for literary fiction. However, what I did find interesting was that drama is defined as a mode, a new term for me.

I find great difficulties in defining fiction simply, given that in the twenty first century the division between fiction and non-fiction has become meaningless. Certainly the greatest literature is about truth and scientists recognize that their theories are just useful fictions. I'm not an expert on genre, and I suspect that the experts may not always agree, but I plan to look further into this.

I thought it would save confusion if we kept the discussion here for now. I'll try and look closely at you useful ideas later today, if possible,Rwood128 (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a contrary opinion, which is that "reducing confusion" when discussing substantive criticisms is best done on the article talk page. Otherwise, other knowledgeable people don't know about it, and when they find out we usually run into WP:MULTI problems. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NewsAndEventsGuy I totally agree, and had considered suggesting that to Wolfdog. I would be happy to see this whole discussion copied to Fiction Talk, if that is acceptable to Wolfdog. I have other things on my mind, but giving the criticism above a quick look, I think that much is probably true and Fiction should be revised accordingly. For me the final part is the most important: "The word fiction is at times used incorrectly, when works in other genres, such as the theatre, opera, film, etc., are described as being in the fiction genre. They are, however, of course, in the other sense of the word, works of fiction." The final sentence was an after thought, so it might well be deleted, (see reference to wordiness above), especially if the confusion earlier in the lede is resolved.

But see my comment above re the thorny question of truth and fiction. It may take time to get better wording.

I did find the previous version "clunky, awkward" in places, to quote Wolfdog. My preference would be to continue editing rather than endless discussion, though here both are probably needed. Rwood128 (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog:, 2 out of 3 of us have agreed to move the guts of this thread to Talk:Fiction. Do you also consent? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Penguin Dictionary of Literary Terms, ed. Cuddon (1999), defines Fiction as "A vague and general term for an imaginative work, usually in prose" and A Handbook to Literature, Harmon and Holman (7th edition), as " Narrative writing drawn from the imagination rather than from history or fact. The term most usual associated with novels and short stories, though drama and narrative poetry are also forms of fiction. M. H. Abrams's A Glossary of Literary Terms (1999) has a long discussion of "Fiction and Truth", which looks most useful here. His definition is more lengthy, so I won't quote it – but similar to that of Cuddon. What is most interesting is that the word "genre" is missing from these definitions. The dates refer to my editions, which are reprints. Rwood128 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's time to move the discussion. I have know idea if there is some formal way to do this, but go ahead. Wolfdog (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolfdog: NewsAndEventsGuy, I'd just cut and paste with a brief explanation, but maybe there're formal WP rules! Shall I do that? Rwood128 (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only rules that apply are that this is your talk page. See WP:OWNTALK; since the only members of the discussion all agree, cut and paste away. Even better, cut, paste, and chop out the off point noise (like all of my remarks so far), so long as you don't change anyone else's meaning. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The article Renaissance literature seems rather short for such a broad topic. Perhaps if you have the inclination you would be able to improve it. (I did some work on it a long time ago but do not have access to much more in the way of sources.)--Johnsoniensis (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnsoniensis, agreed. I'll add it to my watch list and will try to help, over time – it sounds like a possible entry for WP: The Core Contest for next year. Rwood128 (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good; at present the Norwegian article on this topic is much fuller, but so few people know Norwegian that it does not help much with the improving the English one.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwood128 - If you're not too busy, do you feel like replying to this editor at Talk:Heart of Darkness#Postcolonialism Section? CorinneSD (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume by now you've seen the latest edits to Heart of Darkness: [10]. I used Earwig's Copyvio Detector (link is on my talk page, under the Signpost) for the entire article and found 54.3% probability of the presence of copyvio. Then I did another search, entering the revision I.D., which I think is the last nine digits in the url of the revision, which I've supplied here, and it found 97.2% probability of copyvio. If you click on this link you ought to be able to see it: [11]. I don't know if I've done everything right, but if I have, that's an awfully high percentage. I'll leave the editing or reverting up to you. CorinneSD (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, especially as Earwig's Copyvio Detector is new to me – but isn't the blog using the Wikipedia article rather than the other way round? Using Google I couldn't find any problems with the recent edits. Rwood128 (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when 7&6=13 gave me the link to ECD, he warned me about that. See the note I wrote right under the link on my talk page. I didn't check Google. CorinneSD (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this just before your two edits to Gertrude Bell: [12] Does that belong there? CorinneSD (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead of the article on Joseph Conrad, an editor added a name to a list of people whom Conrad influenced. However, besides a missing period, the link is red. I know that sometimes red-linked names or terms are left as is to encourage others to write an article, but in this case, it's the only red-linked name in a long list of writers, and it's in the lead, so I think it detracts from the appearance of the article. I don't know who this philosopher is, or whether s/he was indeed influenced by Conrad. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CorinneSD this person has been removed by another editor. But should this full list be in the lead rather than just select major figures? Furthermore some names have no citations. I would suggest moving the main list to the "Legacy" section. Rwood128 (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I thought the list was too long for the lead. Do you want to take care of this? You'll know which major figures to leave in the lead, and you'll probably be able to find some citations. CorinneSD (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Joseph Conrad, what do you think about this edit to Heart of Darkness? [13] Is that an appropriate external link? CorinneSD (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll do it.

Re H of D , I've noticed these links being added on other pages, but I have nn idea about WP policy. Rwood128 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith? What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that list is too long and should be removed (or drastically cut) from the lead. I have no opinion nor knowledge of policy re: that type of ext. link. Vsmith (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:External links. A quick read suggests that this link is acceptable, but I'm no authority on rules and regulations. Rwood128 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R, what do you think of this edit to Thomas Hardy? [14] Be sure to read all the notes to editors. CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne. I just took a quick look. This seems unsatisfactory, but it's late, so I'll check properly tomorrow. Rwood128 (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just started reading the article on Richard Francis Burton. I was surprised to see in the first sentence in the section Richard Francis Burton#Early life and education (1822–42) the time of his birth in addition to the date. Do you think it is necessary to give the exact time of his birth? CorinneSD (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you remove it as unnecessary detail, unless Burton's horoscope is important. Rwood128 (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also baptism? Rwood128 (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. That would mean removing an entire sentence. What do you think?

I have just finished reading the entire article. I want to ask you about something. In the second-to-last paragraph (or around there) in the section Richard Francis Burton#Scandals is the following sentence:

• Stanley Lane-Poole, a Burton detractor, reported that Burton "confessed rather shamefastly that he had never killed anybody at any time."

I thought the word was normally spelled "shamefacedly". Can you check to see whether this word was correctly copied from the source? If it was, shouldn't [sic] be added after the misspelled word? CorinneSD (talk) 03:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was a typo, but it's in the original (checked using Google). See Merriam Webster [15] Rwood128 (talk) 09:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished reading the article on Isabel Burton, and I came across this sentence in the fourth-to-last paragraph of Isabel Burton#Biography:

• She now needed morphine injections to help her cope with the pain of the cancer, but she was determined to republish 34 of Richard's works in a memorial edition.

Since (unless I missed it), there is no mention of cancer, or even illness, before this, the phrase "the cancer" makes me think this might have been copied from a source. Do you feel like looking into this? CorinneSD (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is in the source cited, so you may need to supply quotation marks. Rwood128 (talk) 11:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwood128 - I was looking at the article on Australia, and in the section Australia#Etymology, there are two block quotes. However, the second one is formatted differently from the first one. I don't understand the need for an asterisk and indentation. Would you mind looking at it? I left this question at User talk:Vsmith#Australia. V found the source, and saw that it was indeed a footnote in the original source, but was not sure whether the asterisk was needed. Do you know? CorinneSD (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you Corinne. I can see no need for the asterisks in this context and have edited -- in the original situation they were needed. Rwood128 (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, thanks for taking it for CE. Must inform me once you are done with copy editing. Thanks in advance.25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ 11:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ please note that I have not "officially" taken over, and in fact informed CorinneSD that I was unable to continue working on this article. However, I did further edits yesterday and, if there's time, will continue to the end of INC. I will let you know if I manage to do this. Rwood128 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^☣ I've finished and have informed Corinne, however, whether it is "done" is another matter -- I suspect that that the tag re "redundant information and definitions" might still apply to some extent. Rwood128 (talk) 10:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

R, I'd just like your opinion on this edit to George Santayana: [16]. Corinne (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, while I'm inclined to agree with you, I can understand the revert. I'm curious why subtle is used. It really needs a note or citation! Rwood128 (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, do you feel like looking at these articles for one last look? See Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Response from Rodw. - Corinne (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, if I can find an hour late tomorrow. Rwood128 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Corinne but I never got to this and don't think I will in the near future. Rwood128 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished a copyedit of Noah's wine, and I noticed that the writer several times mentioned in the text the name of a work from which a quote was taken. I see in WP:INTEXT, about the third example down, that this is to be avoided. It says, "It is best not to clutter articles with information best left to the references. Interested readers can click on the ref to find out the publishing journal", followed by an example with a red "X" next to it. I am sure there are some cases where it is all right to mention the work, but I don't know whether the examples in Noah's wine qualify. Would you mind taking a look at both the article and the guideline and letting me know what you think? Corinne (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne, I went ahead and edited, hope that's OK. R? (Rwood128 (talk) 01:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I noticed you moved the a few of the sources to after the quote, as opposed to after the ":". I've been wondering about this as of late, because I've seen it done both ways. Does the manual of style or a guideline clarify this? Regards, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rwood128 Yes, that's fine. I'm glad you went ahead and edited. Corinne (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I always took the guideline to be after any punctuation, including commas and colons. Sometimes material comes from two sources within a sentence and I think it can be argued that it is more accurate to link each segment directly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We got into an edit conflict so I'll wait for a day till you've finished. In general the correct punctuation between numerals is an en rule – not a hyphen -. A hyphen is OK for a typescript, but not for print. My other problem is that the "." at the end of an abbreviation should be followed by a space: "No. 1", "pp. 222–33" etc. The first consideration should be consistency within the article, and the second consistency among articles in British English. Otherwise, well done and thank you. Bmcln1 (talk) 14:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Art into Western canon. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see by your edits to Literary modernism you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please let me know if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, I appreciated your earlier advice and have endeavoured to follow the rules, as you will see from recent edits. I don't understand the reference to Literary modernism, because I have only added an item to "see also". If an error has occurred elsewhere it was because I was working too fast and trying to do too much, not a lack of awareness. However, I cannot see anything. Rwood128 (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. The article was Twentieth-Century English literature, which you created on the 9th of May, using material copied from Literary modernism and elsewhere. When creating a new article using exisiting content, please say so in your initial edit summary, and consider placing a {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination pages. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, yes, I wondered if you meant that. I thought that I had only used one source, English literature, which was properly acknowledged on both articles Talk page. I don't see (or remember) where I might have borrowed from Literary modernism. II did, however, apparently work on Literary modernism in the fall of 2013 (and may have not acknowledging sources then). Part of the problem here could be that I'm "plagiarizing" myself. Rwood128 (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is not very subtle, and I must have got it wrong as to which was the source. Please in the future note in the edit summary that the material is copied. The templates on the talk page are optional, but the edit summary is not. (Attribution is not mandatory if you have copied material that you wrote yourself, but I suggest you might consider doing it regardless, as many of these are appearing on the bot report, and you can save me a lot of time if it's mentioned in the edit summary.) Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, sorry to have put you to this trouble. I see that I should have added a brief note for the first edit of Twentieth-century English literature, not just the note on the Talk page. Now I know there's not just you, but a bot watching, I will be more diligent. Best wishes. Rwood128 (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is hunting more specifically for copyright violations, but it's locating many of these attribution issues as well. It's actually a little-known requirement; you would be surprised how many editors don't know about it! Happy editing, — Diannaa (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rwood. One other small thing, when copying between articles in Wiki (such as here) watch out for differences in citation format. The source (English Literature) used {{sfn}} and foot notes whereas the target (Commonwealth of Nations) did not. The effect was to copy a link to nowhere and generate a large red error marker for Drabble (1996). Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rwood128. I don't think this was vandalism, as the novel is partly set in Rome (compare the plot summary). You did right to revert it, since the Rome setting is quite minor compared to the Midlands, but I believe the addition was well meant. Please be kind to IPs. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

No, after, I have done many edits splitting Gregory Benford, Frederik Pohl, R.A. Salvatore, Roger Zelazny, Lawrence Watt-Evans and many more, I didn't realise he will pick on these 4 authors. That's all. No one talks on the talk pages, so I am bold and doing it. He is "rougeish" :), and I really don't like it. I have done many of those splits, mate. I don't why he is so picky about these 4. That's all and putting me on top pages.

Kindest regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

The Mad Hatter, I took a closer look and added a comment to the discussion – which in fact closed while I was editing. Rwood128 (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the British literature page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the British literature page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point was, the term is used in Dickens so can't it be used in one of his pages? I'll drop it if you disagree. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

De la Marck this is a minor matter. Feel free to revert. It just sounds quaint like "poetess". Rwood128 (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for crediting the source of the material as you did in this edit Many editors are under the impression that it is okay to copy material from other Wikipedia articles without identifying the source. However, if you look at our guideline:

Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia

It suggests a specific format for the edit summary including a link to the original page and the notation "see that page's history for attribution"

I don't think it's necessary to make a correction to the edit summary you have already left but should you find occasion to do a similar edit in the future I hope you'll follow the ideal process. Thanks in advance.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. User:SMcCandlish made a move proposal to try to address the problems with Drama (film and television) that we've been talking about. I thought I'd try to look into it more deeply, following our discussions on the talk page of drama. I'm going to be bold and make some substantial changes to it, which I've talked through on User:SMcCandlish's talk and which I'll put also on the talk of the two articles once I'm done. Thought I'd leave a note here pointing you to them, in case you were interested. Happy editing,  • DP •  ^{huh?} 15:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I'm om holiday, but it's good to hear ofyour plans.Rwood128 (talk) 07:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British regional literature, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Durham and Maiden Castle. 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) 10:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I accepted two edits I looked at recently but for best practices, please see: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks S Philbrick(Talk). I try and be careful, but when trying to improve weak articles at speed, errors sometimes occur.Rwood128 (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. Your wording choice may well be acceptable, but I thought I would point out the best practices language.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointed by your recent comments, which I'm deleting. As per WP: No Personal Attacks, which please read, I'm responding here and not on the articles' talk pages. Crawiki (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision of my edit on 'English poetry'

From 'Jacobean and Caroline poetry: 1603-1660' :

"John Milton (1608–74) is considered one of the greatest English poets, and wrote at a time of religious flux and political upheaval. He is generally seen as the last major poet of the English Renaissance, though his most renowned epic poems were written in the Restoration period, including Paradise Lost (1671). Among the important poems Milton wrote during this period are L'Allegro, 1631; Il Penseroso, 1634; Comus (a masque), 1638; and Lycidas (1638). Paradise Regained (1671) and Samson Agonistes (1671) are also highly regarded. William Hayley's 1796 biography called him the "greatest English author",[8] and he remains generally regarded "as one of the preeminent writers in the English language".[9]"

From 'The Restoration and 18th century' :

John Milton (1608–74), one of the greatest English poets, wrote at this time of religious flux and political upheaval. He is generally seen as the last major poet of the English Renaissance, though his major epic poems were written in the Restoration period. Some of Milton's important poems, were written before the Restoration, including L'Allegro, 1631; Il Penseroso, 1634; Comus (a masque), 1638; and Lycidas, (1638). His later major works include Paradise Regained, 1671 and Samson Agonistes, 1671. Milton's works reflect deep personal convictions, a passion for freedom and self-determination, and the urgent issues and political turbulence of his day. Writing in English, Latin, and Italian, he achieved international renown within his lifetime, and his celebrated Areopagitica (1644), written in condemnation of pre-publication censorship, is among history's most influential and impassioned defences of free speech and freedom of the press. William Hayley's 1796 biography called him the "greatest English author",[8] and he remains generally regarded "as one of the preeminent writers in the English language".[9]

My edit was to remove one of these almost verbatim repetitions, literally between them there are only a few words difference. my deletion of one of them made complete sense, otherwise people are literally reading the exact same thing for no reason. Saehyu (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Saehyu. I have removed most of the repeated material. Rwood128 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Actor. The references for which you removed the definitions were used later in the article, so errors were created. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have vandalized that article with that ugly banner. The article already has 10 sources, just what do you expect? And why can't you do something to improve wikipedia rather than simply complain about it in such a public fashion that it downgrades the look of the entire project? A little lazy are we? Trackinfo (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Trackinfo. But please move this comment to the appropriate place on Trail running, where others can see it, and decide if I'm a vandal. Also if the banner isn't needed you can remove it. With regard to being lazy, you will see that I have made some recent edits, though, unlike you, I am not especially interested in the topic. Perhaps you might fill in some of the numerous missing citations. Rwood128 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo, I have just read the opening remarks on you user page and now better understand your annoyance. Please understand that I was not attacking the article but trying to suggest that there were a problem with its lack of citations. The tag is there to warn readers and to encourage anyone interested enough to try and improve the article. I feel guilty when I tag something and try, if possible, to go back and do some improving. I am reluctant to delete. Rwood128 (talk) 13:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took me a while to circle back. I don't have a particular insight into Trail running, but more importantly I'm not the one complaining. The basic principle is, if you identify something wrong on wikipedia, go ahead and fix it. If you have the wiki skills to leave a page, you should have the skills to research whatever omission you are aware of. Shirking your complaint onto someone else, without even identifying what it is, serves no purpose. And a public tag is a poor option because it merely makes public your complaint and devalues all the work that precedes your complaint. Maybe all that work is wrong and you are right. We have bad people who post bad information all the time. Your complaint, your tag doesn't help. Most of the public doesn't even know what it is. Leaving the bad information doesn't help, we are still misinforming the public. Real help is to get it right. Learn about the subject so you know whether you are misinformed, or if wikipedia is wrong. Now you have sources. Then fix it. Trackinfo (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Trackinfo, I sympathise with what you say. However, while ideally, if an editor identifies something wrong on wikipedia, they should go ahead and fix it this isn't always possible, and there is a whole arsenal of tags that are available. It seems to me that your quarrel is not with me but with established Wikipedia policy. The editors who failed to support statements with citations –a basic requirement on Wikipedia–were the real shirkers, surely. As noted before, I always feel a little guilty when I tag anything, but isn't it better to add an editorial comment than ignore some flaw, when you do not have the time to do more? What was wrong was clearly stated by the tag. I was not shirking, and made several edits to try and improve Trail running. All the same I'll try and check policy on tagging more fully. Many thanks for the helpful comments that have given me insight into an alternative view to what I had previously seen as sound, and established Wikipedia policy. Rwood128 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any enumeration. I, as a random editor, don't see what you are complaining about. You left boilerplate "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Further, there is nothing on the talk page or even in hidden text. I don't see anything that looks controversial within the text. I have nowhere to begin to solve YOUR problem. And if you see something controversial in this article, that you need to object to, you must be well informed about the subject. If you ae not already an expert in the field, then you need to locate sources in order to inform yourself. If those sources tell you something is wrong, you have a source in front of you to use to make that correction and post as a source. If you don't have knowledge or a source, how do you know something is wrong? There were two CNs in the article, probably added by you, both related to a DIFFERENT SUBJECT used in comparative terms. So I found a source to that information IN THE DIFFERENT SUBJECT of Fell running. As I dig into this, it seems more ridiculous you choose to waste MY time on this. You could have done this by yourself by following the wikilink. Use your brain. Please continue to help wikipedia, but get your priorities in order. Find and solve real problems. Don't make up stuff that turns out to be non-problems. Trackinfo (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited English literature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 16:28, 14 June 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there. You're the most active editor with regards to radio drama, so I wanted to reach out to you, to follow up with an issue I've encountered. The filmmaker and musician Shawn Christensen has been directing radio drama podcasts for Dick Wolf's Endeavor Audio label for the past year. I was wondering, how would one go about crediting Christensen for the podcasts on his page? Would it be categorized under Discography, or would it be its own separate section? By the way, he's also had voice cameos in the podcasts, as well. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 21:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as the podcast-radio drama director, would he be categorized as a podcaster? DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 22:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm far from an expert, especially re podcasts. I would have thought adding the following, along with some details of the kind of podcasts is what is needed (with a citation):

Christensen has been directing radio drama podcasts for Dick Wolf's Endeavor Audio label for the past year, including voice cameos.

A list of podcasts seem excessive to me, but you might check articles for prominent podcasters, for guidance. Hope this is of help.

Re the second question: presumably the creator of a podcast is a podcaster. Is Christensen the creator, or does he direct podcasts written and produced by others? But maybe you need to check with someone who knows this topic better than I do? Rwood128 (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christensen's only the director, with others being listed as the writers and creators. I've been looking for help, but unfortunately WikiProject Podcasting ironically doesn't have any experts on the subject and they maybe have one active member, who doesn't have answers, as well. My question may have come out of left field, but I figured asking you would be worth a shot, as you seem to know a lot about radio dramas, which may be the closest thing to this. I'll investigate further who I may be able to ask. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 01:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, Christensen isn't a podcaster but a director of podcasts. You can still add the sentence to the article on him that I suggested (with added detail about the subject matter of the podcasts along with any other relevant details and a citation). For example is he part of a team? I presume Dick Wolf is the producer and therefore wouldn't he be the podcaster – it's "Dick Wolf's Endeavor Audio label"? Rwood128 (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Persona poetry. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Diannaa, sorry to have taken your time (once again). As far as I am aware I fixed the slip in a subsequent edit to Persona poetry. I reported that to User:EranBot's Talk page. The error was logged at 13.18. As far as I can tell this related to an edit at 13.12 and I had fixed the problem at 13.16: "Confessional poetry: The previous edit took material from the article Confessional poetry". Thanks. Rwood128 (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not notice you later added the required attribution. — Diannaa (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the mass popular culture page moves and try to revert most of them. "Popular culture" is the proper descriptor. That includes 'the arts' within the title (popular culture and 'the arts' are the same thing). If this is the way you feel these should go maybe start an RfC discussion to get consensus. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I've got things wrong Randy Kryn, but isn't popular culture " mass culture [or] pop culture)" or, "culture based on the tastes of ordinary people rather than an educated elite"? This surely doesn't include opera, and the other high arts. I carefully checked the articles that I edited, and the changes made reflect the content – and even the original ledes. I only occasionally found an article that just contained popular culture (or with just the odd work of literature included). I carefully noted the reasons for any changes. Popular culture and 'the arts' aren't the same thing. Though obviously popular culture produces works of art at times. I tried to start a discussion on the talk page of Popular culture, but then found so many obvious errors that I decided to be bold and then started making some changes that seemed obvious. In passing I noticed that many articles badly needed other edits, especially regarding citations. Rwood128 (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, Randy Kryn, that you have reverted the article Mermaids in popular culture. Perhaps there I was too quick, as this article does mainly focuses on popular culture, but maybe you might delete "Prufrock]", or explain how Eliot's poem has become a pop culture artifact. As well, though the The Chronicles of Narnia are pretty well-know (best-sellers?), aren't they really literature? Rwood128 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not criticizing your good faith moves and don't want to go through them item for item, just that 'in popular culture' articles are so common (and most include most forms of art) that such a major change in titling of large amounts of articles should be vetted in a site wide discussion, maybe through at least an RfC. I came upon your work on the 'Muses in popular culture' page. Yes, nice work on the additional edits, am quite familiar with that way of editing and that bests describes how I usually edit combined with watch list and other things (although I don't like to talk process, creative energy lost). Good to meet you, and am interested to see if other editors rename the pages or if they are left as you prefer. Thanks for the quick reply. Randy Kryn (talk