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) 16:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. the categories are titled to popular culture as well (i.e. Category:Mermaids in popular culture), so the terminology isn't limited to articles, list art, or the section headers 'In popular culture'. Added an entry to the Mermaids in popular culture category brought on by going to the page because of your edit - Wikipedia collab works again! Randy Kryn (talk) 17:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments Randy Kryn. Maybe I acted too quickly, but I was somewhat irritated by what I saw as an obviously inaccurate use of the term popular culture in so many articles. Yes, indeed most articles on popular culture include at least high art literature but that doesn't make the inclusion correct. I eventually decided that changing the title was better than deleting, say, an entry on a Handel opera, or Milton's Paradise Lost. This can be thorny topic because there are surely high art films and Hollywood blockbusters! Rwood128 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested to see if I get any other comments. Good to have this friendly encounter. Rwood128 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I now better understand your response to my edits, the Muses in popular culture was another example of my being too quick on the trigger. I'll go back and check the others, though in most case the problem was very obvious. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. Rwood128 (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. For me finding a mermaid statue I haven't seen before is worth the fun. And things like operas are considered popular culture. I like your term high art (I do many edits in visual arts, and now walking through a half-way decent museum is like seeing old friends). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. oh, I see, you meant the high culture page. Just clicked on it, haven't seen that one before, thanks. Will go back to check it out. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how opera can be popular culture (maybe Italy?)? And Paradise Lost? Popular culture is defined by the OED as "the cultural traditions of the ordinary people of a particular community".

Opera is a form of theater and entertainment, and it seems Wikipedia's 'In popular culture' sections are not designed or meant to follow the now class-discriminatory designations of 'high' and 'low' culture. A good thing, in my opinion, unless I'm totally wrong and Wikipedia policy is to define various forms of entertainment in culture as enjoyable and important to those in a certain class and inaccessible and unimportant to some (tickets to operas and stage plays called "Rock opera" could be sold according to where a person lives, how much money they control, or with whom they know, associate, or socialize with, proof of social registery required at the box office or online). An interesting discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn opera is a form of high culture, even though it can now be viewed at the local cinema in many places, as are other forms of classical music, many novels, and plays, and much poetry. Some cinema is also obviously high art. This is a matter of following definitions of words (and social reality) not a matter of class discrimination. Where do you see find this supposed Wikipedia policy? (Conservapedia believes this is how it WP works! With regard to rock operas they are a more highbrow form of popular music.

By the way are you arguing that all theatre is a form of popular culture? Does that include Greek tragedy, William Shakespear, Racine, Samuel Beckett, etc? And is T. S. Eliot's modernist poem "Prufrock" popular culture, i.e.. read by the masses? This is a matter of money in reality: that is mass media makes people wealthy and the arts require state subsidies, or wealthy donors (as is the case with Live at the Met).

Personally I object to classical music being called serious, highbrow, or intellectual, and even the indiscriminate use of the term "classical". There is just good or bad music (rather than high or low). And regarding theatre there is the famous story of Waiting for Godot being performed to prison inmates. But this doesn't change what the words popular culture mean. Rwood128 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC) Rwood128 (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Randy Kryn, shouldn't this discussion really be on Talk: Popular culture? I will put a link on that page, if you agree?

Yes, by all means, and if you feel so strong about this topic please form a concise question about changing or defining what popular culture means and how it is defined for '...in popular culture' pages, categories, and within 'In popular culture' sections of Wikipedia articles and navigational templates, then place it as an Rfc in a widely seen Wikipedia policy or guideline talk page. And as I said, I may be completely wrong in defining popular culture, in terms of visible-text Wikipedia usage, as more inclusive. A worthwhile topic, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2020 (UT

I remain confused by your ideas, Randy Kryn, because what you say seems to totally ignore what is said in the popular culture article, as well as ignoring all dictionary definitions. Because some editors on WP have ignored these facts doesn't mean that Wikipedia has created its own, new definition of popular culture, and erased the reality that both high and mass culture exist. Rwood128 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Popular culture Rwood128 (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rwood128

I meant to undo a redirect change of yours on Fictional foxes but instead did a rollback. My apologies for this inadvertent rollback. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently bumped WikiProject Backpacking's importance classification from Low to Top on an article. I would appreciate a conversation before such a large move. Please read the criteria the project is using and discuss the change in the future if the difference between opinions is so large. In the case of the article Trails. That is a general article. Also there is another project that covers trails as its primary focus. If you would like to influence our importance rating criteria then please, by all means, join the project and advocate for your position. I would be glad to have another energetic editor on the job. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I spoke too soon, I see. I was mistaken about the project if not the page. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'd still love to have you on the backpacking project too. —¿philoserf? (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If —¿philoserf? trails aren't important (notable) to the Backpacking (hiking}} project, to save confusion, why not remove the template all together, and leave it for the main hiking project to deal with? Rwood128 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors in the project were of the opinion that we care about trails used by backpackers. Some advocated that even some of the shorter trails might be important to older backpackers. Since there was no consensus we kept them and used low importance. —¿philoserf? (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks I will look back at that earlier discussion. The right to roam might be added.Rwood128 (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to suspect, —¿philoserf?, that we may be using the term trail differently, I grow up in England and associate trails with long routes, and Britain has National Trails (they also frequently use the term "way"). Though of course trail is used similarly in the US. Wheras perhaps this is closer to what you see in the word: "A path or track worn by the passage of persons travelling in a wild or uninhabited region; a beaten track, a rude path. (Chiefly U.S. and Canadian; also New Zealand and Australian)" (OED). What I might tend to see as a footpath, or track.

In the states a trail could be 1 mile (1.6 km) or even less, paved, shared with bicycles, runners, and casual walkers. —¿philoserf? (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe Americans tend to associate backpacking with camping, whereas I began backpacking (long ago) between YHA hostels.

The project supports what used to be called wilderness backpacking on Wikipedia. wilderness backpacking -> Backpacking (wilderness) -> Backpacking (hiking). In the states that is hiking or, even sometimes snowshoeing, skiing, overnight. —¿philoserf? (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow I'll check the past discussions. Rwood128 (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The popular pages bot has updated the list for the first time since I began cleaning up the Backpacking project. Take a look and let me know if we are on the right track. As always, we change importance on the article talk pages. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Backpacking/Popular_pages —¿philoserf? (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ten_Essentials&diff=prev&oldid=946393689&diffmode=source While updating importance the wiki markup broke. —¿philoserf? (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until the criteria change in the project your changes are at odds with the project guidelines. See WP:WikiProject Backpacking#Articles please. Get the criteria change before the importance changes to articles. carts and horse. —¿philoserf? (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Can you please clarify. What edits raised the red flag? I thought that I was being consistent and that any disagreement could be discussed/reverted as is normal. Rwood128 (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at all of them. When I say the Pacific Crest Trail demoted I knew that was inconsistent with the priority/importance guidelines. —¿philoserf? (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I do appreciate the energy and participation. —¿philoserf? (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the specific section about importance. See the bullets below the table. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Backpacking#On_article_priority/importance —¿philoserf? (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add you to the list of project members? And consider watching the main project page WP:BPKG.

Thanks but I prefer to move around, but hiking is one of my major interests. Sorry not to have studied the Project page more carefully.

I'm still not clear where I went wrong, on reading the appropriate section. Re PCT my point is that it was rated higher than other more significant trails. Also I thought that it was a more technical route and therefore beyond many backpackers.

I think the first item badly needs to be revised, to read something along these lines: "National and international long distance trail networks and many subjects related to hiking upon them should probably be High priority."

There's no argument about the following: The Ten essentials and individual articles about the use of the essential or skills need to use it effectively should be High priority. Other equipment critical to a safe and comfortable backpacking trip should be Mid priority unless it is more—or less—notable for another reason. Organizations that support long-distance hikers or the trails they use should be Mid priority.

Change to: : Hiking trails shorter that ten miles (16 km) do not belong to this project.

Delete the following. Not needed. Not every trail can be included!! "Hiking trails longer than ten miles (16 km) should be Low priority unless they are of significant interest to backpackers".

Why include the following anyhow? "Manufacturers or brands of equipment used by backpackers should be excluded unless they are essential to backpackers for an important reason".

Feel free to move these suggestions to the appropriate page. Rwood128 (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. —¿philoserf? (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please, do not make editions without considering the talk page comments. James343e (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully read what you say. Please read what I've actually said. I'm rather tired of being told that I denied various works aren't novels, when that's not what I said. Don't just keep arguing in circles. You need to take a good look at what Margaret Doody, and others say (or even just read some reviews of her book). Also fully read the Novel article, where there are numerous references to different types of romance. I might then have more respect for your opinions.

I am not trying to disparage Tolkein, or any other writer. Tolkein is actually described in the novel article as writing in the epic tradition. You might well disagree that he writes genre fiction. Rwood128 (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking in regarding the multiple publication dates/places. While searching for a first edition of this work I came across multiple editions from 1876 and no guidance on which came first, whether other first editions exist, etc., and was making an effort to start the recording of this information. Perhaps wikipedia is not the best place for it. Would you be opposed to my adding a distinct section to the article for publication history? Is this information too arcane? Thanks again! MeeshKapiche (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MeeshKapiche, there's just one first edition (though there will also obviously be a first American, etc).

Daniel Deronda

John Blackwood agreed to publish Daniel Deronda in eight parts, the first book appearing on February 1, 1876 and the last on September 1. The novel was then published in a four-volume edition, the same schedule and format as used for Middlemarch.(George Eliot. Daniel Deronda. Edinburgh and London: W. Blackwood and Sons, 1876)

I wonder if the publication in 8 parts, followed by the 4 volume edition confused you? This certainly badly needs clarifying, especially as the cover picture shown is of only Book1. The 8 volumes together seems to be considered the first edition. But this wasn't complete until 1 September 1876. A brief discussion of the publication history would certainly be useful. Do you know the date when the four volume edition was published? Many thanks for raising this matter. Rwood128 (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to pile on a bunch of edits that were obviously related to the discussion on the talk page rather than engaging substantively and trying to reach a consensus. Wallnot (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Wallnot but I don't see any pile, just an attempt to clarify and produce a compromise edit. The delete was reasonable; surely – I did comment first but it was obviously duplication when I checked more carefully. This really a matter of grammar or sentence structure more than anything. Rwood128 (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All but the 51 percent figure were duplicates. If it’s not going to be in the lede section it ought at least to be under usage since it’s a more current figure than what’s there now, though I see no problem with leaving it in the lede.

I agree with you that some of the US details needed to be cut down. But the initial change you and Moxy made removed a three word reference to the US. Not undue weight in my opinion. Wallnot (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also not sure how you see your edits as a compromise. They removed language that we hadn’t been discussing, though it was closely related to what we were talking about, and added nothing back. Wallnot (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think Wallnot that detailed discussion should be reserved for the body of the article, especially as the stats for annual versus lifetime use are so confusingly different. I find these kinds of stats dubious anyhow. Rwood128 (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC) PS This is not the right place to discuss this. Please move to the article.[reply]

thankfully “and in the United States” isn’t detailed discussion, so it’s perfect as a brief mention in the lede section. I’m not sure what’s confusing about the difference between lifetime use, but I’m content leaving that info out. As a side note, regardless of how you feel about the stats, we’re just using numbers from RS here, not making independent judgments about how accurate data on a particular subject are. Wallnot (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you’d like to move the conversation User:Rwood128 then would you mind responding to my comments on the talk page? As I said the original issue—the removed words “and in the United States”—still has not been resolved. Wallnot (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Wallnot (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited American literature, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Pit.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 18 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) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SuggestBot

My apologies, looking at your contribution history on Wuthering Heights I think I may have reverted your recent edit too quickly. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 11:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Deamer, thanks. I have restored the edit with some changes, as I too was concerned that there was too much direct quotation, Rwood128 (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your great work on this. You're right that the article was in a disgraceful state. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the kind comment. Rwood128 (talk) 14:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to suggest that my edits are all done with reason. For example let us look at your recent "Love: Minor copy edit. Does this really need further explanation?" I added a tag with a reason and even shared that reason. This reason was that there was clearly a word missing. You ask: "Does this really need further explanation?" I answer: It is nonsense. Untitled50reg (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix any errors, Untitled50reg, that you see–I don't understand why you didn't fix the missing word you mention. I do go over my edits subsequently and look for errors/improvements. Your help in trying to improve this article is most welcome. Rwood128 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You lie that my help is most welcome. I have attracted a visitor to my Talk Page who tells me that my edits to WH are most unwelcome. But for the missing word and my not inserting it, this is because I could not guess what it was. Some options were probably suggested in my tag. I think it said "English" and I could not judge whether it was language or literature etc. For further edits, I am awaiting resolution with my visitor. Untitled50reg (talk) 23:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No lie, Untitled50reg, I need to be kept on my toes! Rwood128 (talk)

The missing word was "language". Sorry about that. Try and work with me and ask if you see a problem–I'm far from perfect. I may at times be working too fast in the endeavour to improve what was a poor article on an important work of literature! Rwood128 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think my visitor has withdrawn from my hot impregnability and not deigned to leave any permissions. The troops attracted the carrion birds also. These birds squawked me that saying that an editor is lying is a personal attack. I said that you lied also, but apparently no hurlyburly drew any birds. So I apologise for making such a monstrous attack on your person, and I apologise that I must reject your suggestions because my visitor has not given me permission to edit Wikipedia. Alas. I say all this in a whisper, for the walls have noses and ears and lips, and I am followed by a most desperate train. Untitled50reg (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As you're adding quite a lot of references, you might like to have a look at the ProveIt tool that allows easy construction of full templated citations. The full templates can include much more information than raw URLs. Or if you're using the visual editor, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor editing of references, though that's less powerful. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I do tend to be lazy about this. Rwood128 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, MichaelMaggs, I am not clear what the advantage would be. I visited ProveIt, but didn't find it helpful – the demo page link was totally confusing (error?). I must admit to finding the use of templates for citations at times irritating, for example, I just tried to fix the following, by adding quotation marks to "Introduction", but with no success: Manning, Susan (1992), Introduction, Quentin Durward, by Scott, Walter, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0192826589. I also couldn't find how to indicate that Manning is the editor. Rwood128 (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you mean about confusing! Looking at Wuthering Heights specifically, that page not only uses source templates but introduces yet another layer of complexity with the harvnb template. So far as I know, that has to be maintained manually. ProveIt can't be used to edit or add bibliographic entries, but could be used elsewhere on the page to add one-off citations. For the example you gave, I think you'll need the Cite book template in the bibilography. But even there some tweaks may be needed as that template doesn't handle very well the (quite common!) thing you are trying to do, which is to reference an introduction by one person in a novel by another. Essentially, though, you're sourcing a 1992 text authored by Susan Manning, so that should be the primary focus - not Walter Scott. She may or may not be the editor of Scott's words as well, but you're citing her as author, not him. I don't know of any sensible way of including the novel's author into the template as well. There may be other options but what I'd do is add that information outside the template like this:

* Manning, Susan (1992). Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0192826589. In 1992 paperback edition of Quentin Durward by Walter Scott

I've made the change on the page, and it seems to work.

More generally, there is a learning curve, but once you know how to do the main stuff it's (usually) straightforward. The advantage to the Wiki is overall consistency and machine-readability. There's one bot, for example (can't remember the name) that looks for book citation templates, tries to find free online copies of the pages cited, and automatically links them in to the reference, making it really easy for later readers to check the source just with one click.

Anyway, back to ProveIt. If you want to use that, you put the cursor where you want the citation to be added, open ProveIt, and Add Reference. Then, type in a short name for the citation (anything you like that will be unique such as ManningIntro), and select the specific type of citation from the drop-down list, for example Book. The available fields will change according to the citation type you have chosen. Most you'll never need, but the main ones will be shown automatically. Click Show All Fields for the rest - or, more conveniently, use the filter field at bottom left to pull up just the ones you want: for example typing "ed" will show you the various Editor fields; also "first" and "last" for multiple author fields. You'll sometimes also need Chapter, and At - the latter being a free text field for eg the appendix or whatever.

You don't need to (and shouldn't) attempt to format any of the fields as the template will do that for you according to its pre-defined protocols. So for example anything typed in the Chapter field will automatically display with quotes around it. Try Show Preview to see what happens. I'm not an expert by any means, but would be happy to try to help if I can. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelMaggs, I really appreciate you taking the time to explain this at length. My old brain needs a new challenge! Rwood128 (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Trail has been completed.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

You'll see that I have tagged sections of the article, particularly in the Construction section, because they lack sufficient citations. The article lacks information on trails in many parts of the world. I assume the hope is that editors in these parts will contribute to the article eventually. In that case I wonder if the Construction section should become a stand alone article so both parts remain manageable? Just a thought.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Twofingered Typist, for these useful comments. Re the "Construction" section. I was aware that there might be a perceived problem, even though the citations do in fact cover the information given. But a reader would have to go and fully studies them to confirm this. When I edited this section I was trying to avoid clutter, but clearly I should have listed more to my inner doubter. Rwood128 (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwood128: I though about your desire not to clutter the article with repetitive citations. I wonder if it's acceptable to put a note in edit mode that a particular citation covers a paragraph or tow, or even a whole section. Then anyone, like me, going in to add a tag would see your note? Just a thought. Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will begin by stressing that I bring no hostility. I bring advice. For I attract hostility. And I know this. And moreover I know that this causes people to revert my edits not because the edit should be reverted, but because it was an edit which I made. Please take care that you are not misled by my name. Untitled50reg (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image is unclear to you. You invited explanation. So here it is.

The image is titled The Infant Shakespeare between Tragedy and Comedy. The image illustrated an article titled Shakespearean problem play. The Shakespearean problem play is a young (cough) label afforded to plays that confuse some people by sitting between Tragedy (cough) and Comedy (cough). So "Shakespearean problem play" is the infant Shakespeare between Tragedy and Comedy. This is why I gave it the image, The Infant Shakespeare between Tragedy and Comedy.

So there it was. Untitled50reg (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason this is on my watchlist so I saw, and reverted, some silly spam addition today. But looking at the article it had three red warning notices about "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation.", which you seem to have introduced in 2015, and which no-one has since fixed. I found what appear to be the three refs in Neo-romanticism, and added them, but I'm not sure I've formatted them ideally - you might like to tidy them up. I also see a similar Harv error message in the Neo-romanticism article. I'm not sure whether I see these red messages because I have some settings set, or whether anyone who goes in to edit the article sees them? I could see them when I looked at various past versions from the "history" list. Good to find that you're still actively editing, anyway - over to you. Happy Editing. PamD 10:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how: "Oliver Twist contains an unromantic portrayal of criminals and their sordid lives, as well as for exposing the cruel treatment of the many orphans in London in the mid-19th century." is proper English, and why you reverted my logged out edit proofreading this content. Jozsefs (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jozsefs, many thanks. My edit was indeed clumsy! Hope the revision is acceptable. Rwood128 (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added a merge tag here. Were you going to start a discussion on the talk page or had you completed the merge? Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CambridgeBayWeather, I went ahead yesterday and began the merging of some of the lengthy discussion. Hope that you see this as something positive. Sorry if I was too quick off the mark but I had been working for a while trying to improve the Inuit culture article, without any reactions to my editing.

I have also suggested changing the name of the Inuit culture article, because it appears to be mainly about the Canadian Inuit. What would, however, be a better idea is for someone with real expertise to work on adding more about the Inuit in other countries. Rwood128 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't concerned about the speed. Actually a lot of times these merges are suggested and never get done. I'm not sure about the Inuit culture as it should include other places. The Inuit article was tagged for a long time being to Canadian specific. Not enough Alaskan and Greenlandic editors. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Glastonbury Romance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rhea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Glastonbury Romance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Lane.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

U told me to look at ur earlier comment but I can't find it. Could u point me to it please? Stephanie921 (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it looks like I changed my mind and added the comment to the revert. I apologizes for my addled brain! Rwood128 (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HI, in this edit you introduced references to "Bradley 1991", "Muir 2005", and "Dowden 1881". Unfortunately you do not appear to have defined them, meaning that nobody can look them up, and adding the article to Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could correct this slip that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
184		English novel (talk)	Add sources
418		Oliver! (talk)	Add sources
209		POUM (talk)	Add sources
234		Ellen Ternan (talk)	Add sources
2,503		Bolsheviks (talk)	Add sources
49		Hay's Galleria (talk)	Add sources
11		Nimblewill Nomad (talk)	Cleanup
18		Tellability (talk)	Cleanup
26		Shatapawali (talk)	Cleanup
311		Sexuality in South Korea (talk)	Expand
114		Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (talk)	Expand
676		Treadmill (talk)	Expand
330		Genre fiction (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
269		The Mystery of Edwin Drood (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
770		Romance novel (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,858		Attachment theory (talk)	Merge
241		Lovesickness (talk)	Merge
171		Earth goddess (talk)	Merge
114		Sibelius (scorewriter) (talk)	Wikify
5		Ned Thomas (talk)	Wikify
1,208		The Pilgrim's Progress (talk)	Wikify
2		William Beauchamp Wildman (talk)	Orphan
2		Đồng Thị Bích Thuỷ (talk)	Orphan
19		Vulnerability-Stress-Adaptation Model (talk)	Orphan
2		Annie Lami (talk)	Stub
5		Roland Mathias (talk)	Stub
39		Premise (narrative) (talk)	Stub
37		Bhaona (talk)	Stub
6		Information World Review (talk)	Stub
5		Gifted (novel) (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[17]

Wikipedia:Non-free content is clear: if you can avoid using nonfree material, you must. I replaced a nonfree quote with a free one conveying the same information, demonstrating that this page can avoid using the nonfree. 175.39.61.121.Talk (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see no improvement 175.39.61.121|Talk in the paraphrase (which also doesn't acknowledge a brief quotation). Furthermore the use of short quotations is acceptable under copyright law, if acknowledged, as far as I'm aware – Quotation#Copyrighted material and fair use. Rwood128 (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terrace.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your [recent edit], no, it doesn't address my concerns, which are about the format, not the content. Issues are:

• "found common usage in the late 1960’s" is in quotes, but the source for it isn't provide. R
• Subsequent text is prefixed by "::". Colons for indentation are only used on talk pages, never in articles, for accessibility among other reasons. But also, it's not clear what the goal of this is. The closest thing to this kind of indentation in articles is {{blockquote}}, but this isn't serving that purpose either.
• Because of these issues, it isn't clear what's being attributed to Cart and what's being attributed to others.

Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia, but I don't seem to understand why you keep reverting my personal comment! It seems a stretch to call it that, but seeing as though the Wikipedian standard for such language is disastrously low, I will accept its usage. It functions as a clarifying agent to the nature of the rookery in which Copperfield was raised, which is ironic in the sense that his father,being the one who named it, was also not present. Could you kindly refrain from deleting it in the future? Mrlocochicken (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mrlocochicken, I'm not a lover of rule books, but an encyclopaedia should have a neutral voice and this is you commenting here. However, to help readers to understand what a rookery is, I did add a link. See Wikipedia:No original research. I'm confused by your final comment – it contradicts what you said earlier: "I will accept its usage". Why is "Wikipedian standard for such language ... disastrously low"? I don't understand? It seems reasonable for an encyclopaedia. Sorry to seem negative, my first editing was somewhat bumpy! Rwood128 (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was a personal comment, which was what you called it, it was simply a statement of the fact that there were no birds in the Rookery. Mrlocochicken (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But is this an important fact? The link is surely sufficient. Anyhow what is ironic about it? – your personal interpretation. It is just the name of a house. Don't waste time with this kind of trivia, especially when this very, minor matter is explained via the link!!!Rwood128 (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is ironic because: "his father,being the one who named it, was also not present", which is objective irony. Mrlocochicken (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Children of Violence requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://books.google.com/books/about/Children_of_Violence.html?id=m-dBAAAAIAAJ. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - There is no copyright violation by Rwood128. Google Books has copied from Wikipedia without attribution. See Talk:Children of Violence#Copyright issue for details. -- Whpq (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#IDreamBooks, if you're interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rwood128 Re. ‘excessive number of unnecessary links’ on the Pickwick Papers page: on reflection, I may have been a bit lavish, but I would still stand by the links ‘Lothario’ ‘Valet’ ‘Gossip’ and ‘Charlatan’. Surely links to other pages form one of the glories of Wikipedia? They make it a vast web of knowledge, along the threads of which one can travel happily for hours, appreciating unexpected and delightful connections. ‘A banquet of nectared sweets that give delight and cloy not’ (Milton on philosophy in ‘Comus’ - one of my favourite quotations).

In an age of short attention spans and ‘dumbing down’, Wikipedia can not only foster general knowledge but also expand limited vocabularies. How wonderful that someone should have created a page ‘Charlatan’.

Re. the character of Tracy Tupman surely ‘Lothario’ forms a good gloss (via a piped link) to the euphemistic ‘romantic lover’ (the ‘tup’ prefix of his appropriate surname relates to rutting rams…)

Re. ‘gossip’ - surely useful to many a modern reader who might be uncertain of the meaning of the rather archaic ‘loquacious’.

As to ‘valet’ - again surely of historical interest? How many people today employ a ‘gentleman’s gentleman’ - or indeed a servant of any kind?

I also noted that, in your zeal for the deletion of unnecessary links, you also deleted my addition of Serjeant Buzfuz to the list of supporting characters and a link to the folk band Sergeant (sic) Buzfuz in the relevant section on Pickwickiana. I have taken the liberty of reinstating those, because I think that they form entirely justifiable edits. yours on Pickwikipedia Flobbadob (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flobbadob, Many thanks for your interesting and thorough comments. I need time to think further. I prefer to consult a dictionary, an online or paper Oxford. My father was a valet in top hotels in London, England. It appears now that London's Savoy Hotel, no longer has valets but butlers. There are still plenty of servants around. I should hire a cleaning lady, friends hire people to clear snow, food can be delivered to my door, etc. Though live-in servants are less common, Trump had an infamous valet named Walt Nauta. Rwood128 (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that you unnecessarily linked words. Though I agree that it can be fun following links. And if you feel strongly about any word, I'll not intervene. The news media seem to use "valet" and "butler" without any need to explain. I restored one link. Thanks Flobbadob. Rwood128 (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit - now that it's wikilinked, I'm not sure what seems unclear to you about social organization in this context? The importance of modernism in the fields of architecture (especially architecture as social engineering), urban planning and other forms of utopianism is quite well-known and is referred to in this article and in High modernism. What could indicate this aspect of modernism more clearly for you? Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Newimpartial. Yes, I can guess what is meant but isn't it sociological jargon and therefore not appropriate in an encyclopaedia? Could social engineering be an acceptable alternative? Otherwise a short sentence may be needed. Rwood128 (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, much as the work of, say, Le Corbusier (or Robert Moses) might have involved social engineering, I don't think the reliable sources use that term in this context, and the equally modernist aleatoric approach of the Situationist International is as close to the opposite of social engineering as I can imagine (but is still about social organization).

If a phrase or sentence is needed to explain social organization, I'd rather it be a footnote than an main text, but I really don't think it is jargon - it is what these words mean "on the tin". Such phrases as "artistic expression" and "technological innovation" strike me as equally complex as "social organization" - I think they are all rather basic concepts in relation to this article. Newimpartial (talk) 00:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial I don't have a clear sense of what the phrase means but literature is my area. Maybe someone else will come up with a solution. What about 'how societies are structured'? Rwood128 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the link only confirms that it is jargon.Rwood128 (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I've reverted some of your recent changes to "Right of way" related articles. Note that making such undiscussed edits in the middle of an active RM at Talk:Right of way is not a great idea. Please use the related talk pages to discuss and obtain consensus. 162 etc. (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Right of way, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Prescription and Indigenous.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the United Kingdom, railway companies received the right to resume^{[further explanation needed]} land for a right of way by private Acts of Parliament.

Maybe someone at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways can explain this Victorian legalese?

I'm also intrigued by the use of the term "right of way" in this context. So who owns the land that the permanent [sic] way is laid upon? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have only gone and made Right-of-way (property access) make sense as an independent article! I think we now have a clear distinction between the two major concepts and a justification for two articles. Now if it had a more rational title, we'd be home and dry.

(Tongue-in-cheek remark, in case it is not obvious, but "many a true word is spoken in jest": your last update was well worth the time.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From urban forestry:

A street tree is any tree that is growing in a city right-of-way, whether between the sidewalk and the curb or in an unimproved right-of-way.^[1]

Is there a technical meaning in US law? (I can't see the citation: "www.portlandoregon.gov took too long to respond.") 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the highway where plants can grow. Rwood128 (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the citation re RoW for orbiting satellites. I really did not believe that it could be for real. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reversion of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_literature&oldid=1232319031 The description says "Clockwise from top left".

Unless my computer is displaying it differently to yours, the required order is therefore "19th-century writer and humorist Mark Twain; 19th-century writer, poet and literary critic Edgar Allan Poe; 20th-century writer and novelist John Steinbeck; 20th-century writer, poet Louise Glück, novelist Toni Morrison, and novelist Ernest Hemingway", as I wrote, not what you reverted it to. Enginear (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enginear, sorry, the "clockwise" confused my old brain. Rwood128 (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we agreed on right of way (public) and right of way (private) as the best practicable new names for the articles currently named "transit" and "property access"? I am happy to be to one to initiate the Request to Move but not unless I can present it as a joint proposal from the two people who have worked on it most. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

𝕁𝕄𝔽, agreed. Rwood128 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring at St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador. I've already told you on my talk page that one of the sources you are adding is user generated. Reverting several good edits by another user, just to add back content you already know is poorly sourced, is disruptive. Please stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677. Sorry, I thought that I was restoring what you had removed – that I'd cut and pasted the last page, before you intervened. I will look into this. The citation has been fixed.

I have just checked and do not agreed with anything in your comment above, Magnolia677. I caanot see what material was removed and you clearly did not check my sources. One at least was highly reputable. I have copy edited/updated the section. Rwood128 (talk) 20:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your edit at Talk:St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador#Content dispute about "trails" section because you placed your reply into the middle of my comment, rather than below my comment. By doing so, you distorted my comment. Please take a moment to read WP:TALKREPLY for help. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on President of canada. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. You've blanked this page twice and changed the target once. As I've told you 4 or 5 times now, if you want it deleted or want the page changed, you need to nominate it at WP:RFD. Your edits and edit warring already got President of Canada protected. Cease the disruptive editing. You've been here 15 years, you should know better. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh my apologies for this childishness. Fortunately Google does a good job with this "president" stuff! Rwood128 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]