User talk:Yllosubmarine/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yllosubmarine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on January 2, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Robert Marshall (1901–1939) was an American forester, writer and wilderness activist. He developed a love for the outdoors during his childhood and became one of the first Adirondack Forty-Sixers. He also traveled to the Alaskan wilderness and authored numerous publications, including the 1933 bestselling book Arctic Village. A scientist with a Doctor of Philosophy in plant physiology, Marshall became independently wealthy after the death of his father. He held two significant public posts during his life: chief of forestry in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, from 1933 to 1937, and head of recreation management in the Forest Service, from 1937 to 1939. Defining wilderness as a social as well as an environmental ideal, Marshall was the first to suggest a formal, national organization dedicated to the preservation of primeval land. In 1935 he became one of the principal founders of The Wilderness Society. Marshall died of heart failure at the age of 38. Today, Marshall is considered largely responsible for the wilderness preservation movement. Several landmarks and areas, including The Bob Marshall Wilderness in Montana and Mount Marshall in the Adirondacks, were named in his honor. (more...)

Yay! I'm glad this article is going up to the main page. Congrats! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. We are finally moving an important musical towards FA. It has now been sitting at GA for a couple of weeks. Would you be so kind as to give it a GA review? I think it is definitely at least GA quality now. Please let me know. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This is at FAC now [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carousel (musical)/archive1 here]. Please comment there if you can spare any time. BTW, I am not currently watching your talk page, so kindly post to my talk page if you have a message for me. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

People are deleting links to this site. Do you have an opinion about this? Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Being lazy and replying here, since I know you watch the page. :) Find-a-Grave, in my opinion, is like Wikipedia, IMDb, and other user-driven sites; it's hardly ever fact-checked, and riddled with errors, unfortunately. I once had to send half a dozen emails to get someone to fix A. Starker Leopold's Find-a-Grave entry, which for some reason included biographical information about his father, Aldo Leopold, but with an incorrect photo and name. How embarrassing. Therefore, I tend not to include links to Find-a-Grave in the articles I write, but I honestly don't go out of my way to remove them. For example, I left the link in Bob Marshall (wilderness activist) because the editor who put it there happens to be one I've had words with previously. I also know for a fact that they're the one who wrote Bob's Find-a-Grave entry. So, yeah. María (habla conmigo) 20:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the reply. I guess they're all going to be deleted. BTW, since you mentioned IMDb, let me ask about IBDB: Unlike IMDb, the IBDB does have editorial oversight. Do you know of any guideline that says that IBDb is or is not a reliable source? All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are worried about my toes, I can quickly alleviate your concern. If I delete an article that isn't acceptable, and it reappears in an acceptable form, I'm thrilled. I can appreciate that some people might want to be informed in such cases, so it was nice of you to let me know.

Some people take pride in articles that they've started. Whether that should be or should not be is irrelevant, it is clear that many people keep track of the article creation count. My guess is that this is a bigger deal when the number is either one or zero. I have no idea how Opus113 feels about the issue. If that user feels strongly that s/he was the first to try to start an article, and was following the procedures for getting it up to snuff, they might be unhappy that someone else beat them to the punch. My request is that you contact Opus113 to see how they feel.

I've never run into this situation before, so I don't know if we have a protocol in place (wouldn't surprise me). In the absence of such a protocol, my suggestion is as follows: The official rule ought to be, the first editor to add an article that isn't a violation of rules (copyright, notability etc) ought to be the one who can claim credit. That said, if someone made a good faith effort to start an article, and really wants credit, it would be polite to offer one of the following alternatives:

1. (simple) Add a note to the talk page indicating that while the first official edit to this version was made by you, Opus113 attempted to start an article at an earlier time, and is free to take some credit for initiating the article in WP.
2. (complicated) If Opus113 really wants formal credit, and you agree to relinquish it, then work together on the draft in the user space of Opus113, and when it is ready, I'll delete the existing article, and move the userspace draft to the article name.

My hope is for the simple approach.--SPhilbrickT 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My concern was that Opus113 might desire credit. That's clearly not an issue, but as it could be in a future instance, there might be a need to consider appropriate policy.--SPhilbrickT 19:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no spoon policy. ;) María (habla conmigo) 20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Burn the witch! Burn her! --Moni3 (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Careful, I'll turn you into a newt. María (habla conmigo) 20:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

No need for a new section, I think. Anyway, replied to you on my talk page and on ED's talk page. Courcelles 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would value your comments at Talk:Musical theatre, where an editor wishes to delete all of the ELs to the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 6, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 6, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 21:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Guy Bradley (1870–1905) was an American game warden and deputy Sheriff for Monroe County, Florida. Born in Chicago, his family relocated to Florida when he was young. As a boy, he often served as guide to visiting fishermen and plume hunters, although he later denounced poaching after legislation was passed to protect the dwindling number of birds. In 1902, Bradley was hired by the American Ornithologists' Union, at the request of the Florida Audubon Society, to become one of the country's first game wardens. Tasked with protecting the area's wading birds from hunters, he single-handedly patrolled the area stretching from Florida's west coast, through the Everglades, to Key West, enforcing the ban on bird hunting. Bradley was shot and killed in the line of duty, after confronting a man and his two sons who were hunting egrets in the Everglades. His much-publicized death at the age of 35 galvanized conservationists, and served as inspiration for future legislation to protect Florida's bird populations. Several national awards and places have been named in his honor. (more...)

Yllosubmarine/Maria; I was pleasantly surprised to find an article on Guy Bradley at Wikipedia's daily featured article on 3/6. Later, while doing research on a book about ornithological history I'm preparing, I came across a wonderful article about "nature fakers," and was astonished to find the author was the same as the Guy Bradley one. So I wanted to express kudos to you for the fine articles. I've only posted one article of my own, but at a future date will be doing a lot of work adding things about ornithological history. If you care to respond, I'm at scitchyrooroo@yahoo.com, or I will keep an eye on my Talk page. Scott McConnell (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of edits to try to bring it back to some kind of shape. It probably needs a copyedit - your prose is better than mine. I'll keep an eye on the page - but don't forget that WP:OWN does give quite a bit of latitude to major editors of FA pages. Also, one thing I've learned in the past year is leaning on policy is helpful. Anyway, take care. I'll ping you when I need Hemingway advice. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just saw the news, and I'm really sorry to hear about Knut. My mind immediately went to you, and I wanted to let you know I'm thinking of you today. God bless, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

My sincere condolences as well. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Knut was my first GA, FA and TFA; I can't even begin to tell you how many articles I've read, images I've cooed over, videos I've watched. That little furball brought me so much joy. It's been a very sad day in my household. María (habla conmigo) 01:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

My condolences to you as well. I recalled that you had worked on this topic and had done a wonderful job. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Adding my condolences too. Hugs and stuff. There's no better way for you to celebrate his life than with the work you've done here. Scartol • Tok 18:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources should be established as early as possible in the article. Kingjeff (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

How about we go over a few things.

• WP:Lead says "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies." I attempted to do this. *It also says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." This is why we source. So it won't have to be challenged to begin with.
• It also says "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." This is really not correct. It's the repeated stuff below the leadsection that is redundant. Rudundant means that certain stuff is no longer needed or useful. For instance, as soon as I referenced both the date of birth and date of death, it was no longer useful or needed in any other section below the lead.
• It also says "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Last time I checked, you are not judge, jury or executioner of any rule or anything else in WIkipedia. Kingjeff (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that nobody will ever challenge the unsource facts. Kingjeff (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just admit you're wrong and I put in 2 different sources. Kingjeff (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You were so focused on reverting my addition that you didn't even realized that there were 2 different sources. Kingjeff (talk) 03:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite get the reason the youtube video document the last moment of the Knut was removed. I have to admit I did not read all the german description (text) in the video. The description could be terrible or morbid... But as a matter of fact in life, the video in or of itself only a reflection of reality. I admit it could be sad or even offensive to the people who love this bear very much. Yet, some readers may be interested in/even have the right to know how it happened. Therefore, I added the link. I am not here to argue for reinstalling the link, but only voice my view. --WikiCantona (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me on this matter. Despite my personal belief that the video's addition is inappropriate, for reasons already mentioned, we should also consider the guidelines for EL-exclusion given at WP:YOUTUBE. Seeing as how Knut's article is Featured, it's important to keep the list of external links to the few most pertinent/encyclopedic. A fan-submitted YouTube video of Knut's final moments don't fit that description, IMHO. Thank you for providing your reasons, however; I don't think you added it maliciously or anything, but it's a very touchy subject with me, as you might tell. María (habla conmigo) 17:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Knut polar bear cub german vanity fair.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Before appealing for arbitration as to the section in The Red Badge of Courage referencing stories told to Crane in the Port Jervis town square I'm reaching out to you here for discussion.

1) That the rectory and church location where Crane's father was pastor are separated from the Port Jervis town square by a few dozen feet is an indisputable fact.

2) Contrary to the contention made in your recent edit/revision to the wiki Red Badge of Courage article, it appears to me that Stanley Wertheim's online message reply asserting that Crane heard American Civil War veterans telling stories in Port Jervis is a reliable source by Wiki guidelines. As you know, Wertheim is regarded as one of the foremost authorities on Crane and heavily referenced in the Wiki Stephen Crane article. His reply appears on the Stephen Crane Society web pages hosted by the University of Washington whose editor is Paul Sorrentino, another highly recognized Crane authority, a collaborator of Wertheim, and the current reference source you yourself have cited.

3) That a historical marker sign in the Port Jervis Orange Square/Veterans' Memorial Park attesting to Crane having been told stories there appears on the Wiki Stephen Crane article seems to be somewhat conflictual and inconsistent with a contention that such historical information only "allegedly" took place.

Please consider accepting changes to The Red Badge of Courage that reflect the above.

Thank you. EarnestManVIII (talk)

Per your response to the above on my talk page:

I am of the opinion that the Port Jervis town square being located directly across the street from the church where Stephen Crane's father preached, which is next to the parish where they lived, is not at all trivial but wholly supports the plausibility of the author having listened to war stories there. As neither has moved since Crane's time there, the proximity of the church and parish to the park remains an indisputable fact to this day.

With due respect, while your views regarded preferred sources are well-taken, Wiki guidelines regarding acceptable sources do seem to be consistent with the statements made by Stanley Wertheim in June 2005 on the Washington State University "Stephen Crane Society" web site which is edited by the very same "preferred" source author your edit reference cites. I do not at all agree with your contention that the Stanley Wertheim material I referenced from that source is "basically an online FAQ." Moreover, I feel that given the above your argument in these regards lacks internal consistency and is rather leaning in the direction of preferential cherry picking of information.

As you do appear to agree that "it is believed that Crane may have interviewed, etc., etc.," is there any good reason why that statement might not be substituted for the current word "alleged" which seems to carry with it a more dubious, prejudicial tone?

Thank you. EarnestManVIII (talk)

Per your second response on my talk page.

I find it rather curiously ironic that you contend the noted Stephen Crane authority Stanley Wertheim’s remarks on a university hosted web site whose editor and founder is Paul Sorrentino, the source to which your own edit citation refers, are not regarded as “scholarly.” Even if your implied suggestion that “The Stephen Crane Society” web site “may even fall under a self-published source” were accepted as true, that assertion would appear to disregard WP guidelines under that section which state “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.”

That having been said, your agreeing to accept the previously proposed opening wording of the entry in question regarding the “belief” that Stephen Crane was influenced by stories told to him in the Port Jervis town square is appreciated.

As to why inclusion of the simple and indisputable fact that Dr. Crane’s church and the parish house in which he, Stephen, and family lived is in immediate proximity to Orange Square Veterans’ Park appears to be a continuing matter of dispute remains to me a mystery.

Thank you. EarnestManVIII (talk)

Thank you for your input, patience, insights, and opinions.

As we do not appear to agree that statements made by recognized Stephen Crane authority Stanley Wertheim which appear on a university hosted web site for “The Stephen Crane Society” that was founded and is edited by Paul Sorrentino, the same individual you prefer to cite in the existing reference, are just as valid and reliable as the printed word, perhaps we will need to move to arbitration for distinction.

Meanwhile, it seems that I did not make myself clear as to the reason why I am of the opinion the parsonage, which is adjacent to the church where Dr. Crane was pastor, is of significance.

As you know, the parsonage is where Stephen Crane lived prior to his father’s death. Just as is true today, a boy the age Stephen was when he lived there - especially a curious and rambunctious one - would have easily walked in a westerly direction on East Broome Street a few score feet before crossing Sussex Street to immediately find himself in Orange Square Veterans’ Park. The town square is visible from the street in front of the parsonage and the church, which is even closer. Rather than “coming out of left field” on this point, as you have stated, I was trying to identify the proximity of the parsonage – not so much the church - to the town square as it lends tangible credence to the belief Crane listened to stories told there by veterans of the American Civil War.

If you are interested in taking a look for yourself this photo, shot in an easterly direction from the Civil War Soldiers and Sailors monument situated at the center of Orange Square, shows the Methodist church (rebuilt a second time in 1985), the historical marker referencing Crane’s interviews held in the park, Sussex Street, and East Broome Street where the parsonage is located directly behind the church. http://portjervisny.com/umc2.jpg

I hope that this clarification is helpful and that perhaps you might consider drafting a brief narrative comment that reflects this information.

Thanks again for all including bringing the faux pax resulting from inadvertently using three tildes vs four to my attention. EarnestManVIII (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. I find it unfortunate that you seem unable or unwilling to understand that it is the proximity of the churches' parsonage - which is immediately adjacent to the church - and not the church itself that I feel is important to mention as it provides tangible credence to the belief that Crane heard the stories of Civil War stories told to him in the town square located only a few score feet away from both. Perhaps that would be most appropriately noted in the Wiki Stephen Crane article.

My suggestion that arbitration might be a needed remedy did not have to do with the above point but rather with the validity and reliability of statements made by Stanley Wertheim on a university hosted Stephen Crane Society web site that was founded and is hosted by Paul Sorrentino, the same individual to whom you yourself attribute your preferred citation. Although you've stated you "feel the matter would be laughed out of any form of arbitration," I am willing to take that irrelevant risk as I'm sure I've faced far greater at the hands of far better.

Thank you again and best wishes for all good things.

EarnestManVIII (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maria, I don't know how much you're around these days, but wondered if you'd want to review Hemingway's True at First Light which is currently at FAC. Here's the link: [1]. No prob if you're too busy. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review - very helpful. The page was promoted last night, so onward to the next one! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

of why you removed my EL. While unnecessary (if someone undoes something I've added to one of their pages, I'm not going to redo it), but it was appreciated. I certainly admire the work that's been done on the Crane article -- I can understand what you said about it being a showcase article -- and I think it's great that you're watching over it. I'm working on a set of articles, mostly in Canadian poetry, either starting or improving them. (The Roberts article is one; I hope you got a chance to read through it.) Thank you again for writing. George Dance (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Missvain has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Hi Maria. Thank you SO much for your review of my Charles Alston. I think GA is the way to go, and your comments are going to not only help me improve this specific article, but, others. Thank you again and for your contributions to Wikpedia. Missvain (talk) 13:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)†

I completed my round of thoughts on Red Badge of Courage. I have it on my watchlist if you have any questions, I hope it makes it through FA, its pretty good! Sadads (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Before I start, I have to say that some of these words may be provoked partially because of irritation with the means of communication itself (I think we all know talk page communication is very unfriendly) and not wholly because of your actions. However, I would be remiss in not expressing the following opinion: I do not appreciate " high schoolers with a rudimentary understanding of sentence structure read that page now" in this edit. Additionally, your arrogance in handling my comments and edits, and that comment are a very poor display of etiquette online. I am in fact a undergraduate in Literature and History at James Madison University and a visiting student at Oxford and understand much of the literary subtext which you approached writing the article. Additionally, I am currently editing for revision several novels for a novelist because she appreciates my ability to improve her communication of ideas, concepts and themes. My comments may be quickly written, and edits may have minor punctuation and style mistakes (and your response to that on my talk page, I was quitely running with earlier, but was clearly not in the line of WP:AGF), however, I should not be disregarded wholesale nor treated as sub-par. I have done fairly well in improving the quality of other user's work in the past, and am disappointed to see an experienced Wikipedian disregarding an opinion because of an elite sense of correctness because of experience with the FAC process. We currently have shortages in participants in FAC, PR and Wikipedia in general, and your task as an experienced Wikipedian should be to draw out a better understanding of where your work hit the other user wrong and an make an effort to give our readers the best quality content with other's opinions in mind. We currently are trying to incorporate a greater influx of university students and professors to the community, and discounting opinions about language and treatment of a subject is a good way to alienate them. That being said please enjoy the cupcake below, and happy editing! I hope your FAC process goes well and the article benefits our broad and complex readership, Sadads (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty I think lies in the accessibility of knowing what FAC wants without having run the gauntlet, and broadcasting that expectation on Peer review (which frankly never draws any good review unless you have connections somewhere in the system). I think a reorientation towards the general readership, and integrating some of what has become expectations for Peer review into the FA process like how many of the basic project review type stuff has become part of GA process, would greatly lighten the difference in expectations I think you and I had for that feedback. But that can be addressed on another day.

Otherwise, sorry about the talk page stalking. Part of the reason I assumed the comment was orieented towards me (after being slightly frustrated with some of the other comments) was that I have been trying to revive WP:Novels for a while, so have been running it janitorially, as WP:Ambassadors has taken over my life. Even then, Truthkeeper and I feel like the only individuals whom regularly provide actual support of content, while we occasionally get assessment and clean up support from others. We would love to have you participate, and maybe rally some more support, and thank you for the kind reply and pointing out of faults :) Happy editing, Sadads (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadads has given you a cupcake! Cupcakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cupcake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Good luck with FAC†

I've been crazy busy and pulling together loose ends before being completely gone, but I'd planned to have time tonight for Crane. I want to re-read again because I haven't had time to follow changes. Interesting that today is the anniversary of the Chancellorsville battle. Thanks, also, for the reviewing Olivia! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've just been leaving a few very minor comments, together with my enthusiastic support, at the FAC page for The Red Badge of Courage. I had cause, as you will see, to rummage in the archives of The Times. This is just to let you know that I have access to a range of British archives – press and other – which I shall be happy to dig in if you ever need it for e.g. press coverage of U.S. books published over here, etc. Please don't hesitate to leave a note on my talk page if you ever want anything on those lines. Tim riley (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		To Maria, for taking the time to find my mistakes - always; and for making the articles better. Thanks so much for y reviewing True at First Light and Olivia Shakespear, and for your commitment to writing about literature. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm writing because you commented on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/21 (Adele album). I've worked hard to address the comments and concerns, and wondered what your stance was on the article. Thank you. Orane (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on the promotion for The Red Badge of Courage. I kinda laughed at your comment on Sandy's page - the reason I'd given up with LQ is a lot of people don't entirely understand it. But your persistence has made go back to using it instead of blindly placing the punctuation inside the quotation marks, even when I know it's wrong. Anyway, job well done! Also wanted you to know that The Sun Also Rises is up now - here. In case you're interested. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! LQ is a bitch, but I'm glad I inspired you into looking it in its stupid face and saying "You know what? I still hate you, but I guess I'll figure you out anyway."  :) I'll look into Also Rises in a few days; technically I'm on vacation until after the holiday. María (habla conmigo) 16:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thought you might be interested in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43195438/ns/business-us_business/ Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Interesting. I miss that big bear. María (habla conmigo) 22:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You are very welcome. The BBC had a similar story about Knut's legacy several months ago. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

ripping tits. Killing commies. Call in the moderators to ban me.TCO (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

...bzuh? This makes absolutely no sense to me, but thanks for... whatever that is supposed to mean. María (habla conmigo) 20:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am more of the bad boy feminine attractor. Nothin like killing commies.TCO (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh huh. Move along now, thanks. María (habla conmigo) 20:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the remarks on your page. Unkind and not even interesting. Sorry. TCO (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Maria, I wonder if you could take a look at a prose question for me? You're one of the better prose writers around here and I'd like to get your take. I reviewed Lara Croft at FAC; it failed, and one of the reasons I didn't support was because the cultural impact section is dense with attributions to sources inline in the prose, which I found distracting and clunky. The nominator and I have each drafted different versions of part of that section on the talk page, and we would like to get a couple of other opinions. Do you have time to take a look? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I've been afw (away from Wiki) for a while, so sorry for the delay! Just left a comment at the talk page. Thanks for thinking of me. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I'll respond there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Maria- Sorry for the very long delay, but I've took another stab at the draft. I'd like to get your input if you have the time. Thanks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC))

Hi María, I notice that you have an interest in 20th century lit and the grotesque both of which relate to the article on Winesburg, Ohio that I've been working on for a while. A week or two ago I put the article up for peer review but have gotten only one response. I was wondering if you could take a quick look and, if you're not too busy, give me a second opinion. I'd like to do what I can to make the article a Good one, but I haven't much WP experience and am not sure what further tweaks need to be made before I submit. Any help would be nice. Thanks :O)

p.s. - I notice you want to do some work on Willa Cather in the future future. I'm a fan of Cather and would be glad to help when you get around to it.--Olegkagan (talk) 00:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the awesome review! Will be spending a good chunk of time tomorrow following up on your suggestions. --Olegkagan (talk) 16:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that entire entry seemed like an attack. First of all, the source is not a childrens book. The publisher's mission statement: "Morgan Reynolds began with one very simple goal—to publish high-quality nonfiction for young adult readers. That goal remains the same today, almost fifteen years later. Morgan Reynolds is still committed to publishing insightful, lively, and well-documented nonfiction. Each Morgan Reynolds title captures the life story and details of a historical figure or event that impacted the world. Full-color illustrations and lively, factual text bring each subject in our books to vivid life." Yes it may be for young adults, but the book has the sources listed as to where the information came from. And I think the author would be insulted if you called her work low caliber while she has facts about his life those "high caliber" authors don't have.

Yes, it's true. I made a typo. A mere oversight I assure you. But to claim it's a red flag because of typos I feel is a stretch. People make tying errors all the time, doesn't make what they type any less true. And the template was used only because I didn't think I would get that much information on Crane that the article didn't have, seeing as it is a featured article. I thought I would only have a few things to update, but as it turns out, Lukes did her homework and really dug hard into Crane's history.

I understand you worked hard on the article. I am very protective of articles I put hours into. But the information I presented is sourced and it's reliable. I didn't get it from a picture book of animals and Dr. Seuss characters. It's from a book with numerous sources. The book is filled with journal entries from not just Crane, but his father, brother, and even childhood friends. Please tell me where you got the idea that the reference is a childrens book.Phaeton23 (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• I am also sorry for my negative tone, as you can clearly see I don't respond well to people attacking things without evidence. Thank you for that evidence. I see that you are an Undergrad in English, which as you also can clearly see, I am not. My area is theatre. The article is obviously is great shape, the information I was adding was only serving as an addition the information on there.

If you would like, I can type out all the references from the book as well. Some of the information in the article on Crane's brother was not exactly true, which is why I would like the information to at least be debated. There is a lot more information in there that I did not put up, but obviously I won't if it will be deleted.

Sidenote: The book had some great photos of Crane's father, Helen, Agnes, Stephen in uniform at the quasi- military school, and his father did not approve of reading, dancing, card games, and a few other things.

Thank You Phaeton23 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• • My apologies and congrats to you! :) I am not trying to sully your hard work on this article, and if you can verify from another source that would be great. I only added that information in hopes of expanding it. Do what you have to do, I will not contest. Thank you for the contribution, and since you have a knack for reviewing, I have two articles that I would love for someone to review, but I don't want to take anymore time then I already have, unless it's alright with you.

Thank You Phaeton23 (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

• [2] - Stephen Sondheim Here is the new Sondheim one Sondheim Peer Review
• August Strindberg, which is you peer reviewed almost a year and a half ago, please check out the article again.
• Can't say it enough, Thank You Phaeton23 (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In this book by Bloom, there is some more information on the scandal. I know it's one of your babies so I figured I would write on here first to see if you think it's useful in anyway.

• I don't know if it really matters but the book says it happened along Sixth Avenue^[1]

• The morning after, Crane waited inside the Jefferson Market Courthouse until he could claim Dora's innocence in front of the judge. A reporter from the New York Journal, and the paper read, "He Wore No Red Badge of Courage, But Pluckily Saved a Girl from the Law". ^[2]

• The Chicago Dispatch quote was from the September 18, 1886 newspaper.^[3]

• Around this time, S. S. McClure, Crane's publisher, introduced him to Theodore Roosevelt because McClure was thinking about having Crane write a story about the New York Police. Roosevelt was a great admirer of Crane, notably Red Badge of Courage, and owned all of his work. They both shared a love of Tolstoy and stories of cowboys and the Wild West. In August, Crane sent him a autographed copy of George's Mother.^[4]

• In the same month, William Jennings Bryan was running as the Democratic candidate for President, and was campaigning at Madison Square Garden. Gatecrashers took the seats of actual ticketholders and they were left unable to attend the event, which caused a lot of bad publicity from the press. Roosevelt wrote to Crane to excuse the police due to inexperience, but it is unclear if Crane ever received the letter. On August 20th, Crane wrote a scathing article in the Gazette, calling the police's negligence a "shameful performance", while blasting both Roosevelt and Thomas F. Byrnes, the corrupt police chief. On August 27th, Roosevelt was beset again by Crane--this time about punished harmless local traders in violation of the blue laws. The police retaliated, and raided his apartment and prove Crane consorted with prostitutes and chorus girls. With his colossal moral code, Roosevelt would come to view Crane as objectionable, and as someone who had showed a distressing lack on inhibition.^[5]

There is more, but tell me what you think.

Thank You :) Phaeton23 (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

• Haha sorry I was just talking to someone about Stoppard, so I apologize for that. There is information on Amy Leslie, some on Cora Crane, childhood, and schooling as well. If there is a section you feel could use some imformation, I will do like I did earlier and show you beforehand. Thank You Phaeton23 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maria, It's been a while! Once again, I'd like to ask your assistance related to a topic we've discussed in the past: the tangled history of the New York State College of Forestry, involving both Cornell & Syracuse Universities. Last week, some rapid changes were made changing the category, 'New York State College of Forestry' to 'State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry'. These changes were done without much thought or appreciation for the combined history of these institutions. The result is messy and not easy to undo. I was unable to locate the source or the initiator, or the rationale for the changes, though I did get some general notions from the Wikipedia category change guidelines. Can you help? Thanks very much! Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: making some progress on this... See: Category talk:State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. A ways to go yet. Suggestions welcome! DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Maria. I anticipate that this will sort itself out in time. I just wish whoever made the change in the first place had taken some time and care to contact those who had developed and contributed to the former category in the first place. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maria, A while back, if I remember right, you froze edits from anonymous users on the History of the New York State College of Forestry article. I'd like to kindly request that you consider such an action again. After a considerable effort to edit the article, the page is promptly being anonymously littered with non-neutral PoV material. See the last couple of additions... Thanks for your consideration, and once again, in advance, for your assistance. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your sage counsel. I don't want to be reactive, so may wait a bit. My hope is that other interested parties may contribute to the discussion, as well. This seems to help keep it neutral. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am sorry about putting my own work of Rimbaud on the Wiki. I will refrain from this in future, Sincerely Reginald GrayReginald gray (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Yllosubmarine. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Hi María. Thank you for peer reviewing Middlesex (novel) at Wikipedia:Peer review/Middlesex (novel)/archive1, where your patient suggestions were very insightful. I have nominated the article for featured article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middlesex (novel)/archive1, where I hope you can review the article against the FA criteria. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 08:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello Yllosubmarine, I hope this finds you well. My name is Matthew and I'm one of the Storytellers working for the Wikimedia Foundation on the 2011 fundraiser. This year we're broadening the scope and the voices of the Wikipedians we profile in the fundraising banners and appeals. While Jimbo has been very successful bringing in the treasure in previous years, he alone doesn't represent the diversity of people who make the projects so important. I'm curious if you would like to participate in an interview with me for this year's efforts? They usually last 60 minutes and I would ask a number of questions about your personal editing experiences and about Wikipedia more broadly. You were recommended to me by Scartol, who I recently interviewed. If you're interested, please email mroth (at) wikimedia.org and we can set up a good time. Thank you! Matthew (WMF) 01:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Shucks Scartol • Tok 14:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote more stuff Scartol • Tok 16:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"N'aww" to you too! :) Erik (talk | contribs) 18:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on Obernewtyn (novel)! I believe I have addressed all your concerns. Feel free to let me know if you have any further suggestions. --Limolover ^talk 04:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

"citation-cleaning"? Incorrect hyphenation is ruining that thread. And don't say it doesn't matter, because it does. We probably have a whole guideline on it...WP:HYPHEN. See? SEE? OK, so it doesn't say anything about talk page threads in particular, but reading between the lines it is 100% implied. 100%. I can't even begin to imagine how long that took to formulate and you post in that thread and basically spit on the work of others with your "citation-cleaning". How you can have the gall to show up on Wikipedia when you put a hyphen in the wrong place, I don't know. I despair, I really do. I'm off to report you to an Ultra-Administrator right now, so hopefully we can stop you before you do any more harm. Yomangani^talk

I... I am ashamed. You may take my English-degrees and burn them. My hyphen-fetish isn't welcome on Wikipedia, I see that now. I shall no longer participate in talk-page-discussions, for as-long as I live. María (yllosubmarine) 18:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Dont mind Yomangani too much. He's not around too much so once we see him, most of us remove all the hypens, but put them all back into the articles as soon as he's gone again. He has no idea what goes on, god bless him. Ceoil (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the cut of your jib. What a sad, hyphen-hating life to live. María (yllosubmarine) 23:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know. Yomangani has he's good points though. I hear he is kind to cats. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I really must ask you to stop denigrating me on various pages around Wikipedia. I have been the top editor around here for many years. My many outstanding achievements are well known to all important Wikipedians and I am held in the highest regard by the elite members of this site. Not only have I personally written over 75% of articles of B class and above, but I have also ensured the promotion of all but three FAs through my tireless copy-editing, sage advice and insightful reviews. You on the other hand, appear (and I say that to ensure this is not viewed as a personal attack) to be a worthless troublemaker obsessed with the daubings of old Dutchmen and and the banshee-like wailing of various "popular" singers. And I don't like cats. Yomangani^talk 13:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

More privately than in the nomination: a bit more is not enough to make it five times 28 Nov, it looks rather like doubling to me. Otherwise you will need an "exception-maker", and I remember tough discussions before (BWV 132 and others), so am not so eager to be the one. Good luck! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to one step up, GA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maria; we've interacted a couple of times but I don't think we've ever worked on an article together. I stopped by here because a recent exchange with Truthkeeper made me aware that there was a fuss going on at Ernest Hemingway, partly, I gather, over the use of templates. I looked at the long discussion there and saw your name in the middle and was hoping for a quick summary of what's happened. I can't quite believe Truthkeeper was blocked, but I gather it is so. Is this about a change from no templates to templated citations, or something like that? The usual rule is WP:CITEVAR, I think, which says "don't change the style without getting consensus first", but I couldn't even figure out who changed what. Can you give me a sentence or two to clarify? I didn't want to add comments there without really knowing what's going on. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much; that summary was very helpful and gave me a much clearer idea of what happened. I appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maria. I hope you're doing well. Stanley Holloway has been [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Holloway/archive1 Nominated at FAC] (not by me), but it has not received many comments. If you can review the article and [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stanley Holloway/archive1 comment here], it would be much appreciated. It could certainly use a fresh pair of eyes, and I think the nominator could really benefit from your perspective and thoughts. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Heeehe. No i usually reply, just not willing to make a big deal. Everything is reverted, i wont nominate the article, i just thought it really did follow the FA criteria exceptionally. Anyways all clear. AND WHO IS SANDY GEORGIA and how did i revert them?.

Please Reply on my talk page. Thank you --Editor2205 (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Okay. Seems like an extremely difficult proccess. I will leave it to the experts. THANK YOU

IF YOU CHOOSE TO REPLY PLEASE DO SO ON MY TALK PAGE AGAIN. thanks --Editor2205 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

On 11 December 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Pulitzer Prize-winning book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek is often compared to Walden, a work on which author Annie Dillard (pictured) based her master's thesis? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pilgrim at Tinker Creek.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maria! I just wanted to quickly ask your opinion. I've started doing some copy-editing on Hepburn in an effort to 'reduce wordiness', as you said. Examples are here and here. Is that the right sort of thing? Is it definitely an improvement? Sometimes I feel like the writing is just ending up boring, heh. I feel a bit bitter, I guess, because I have to cut stuff because she had such a long career...I can't really afford to go into the extra detail that other articles can. And the writing ends up having to be very snappy, which I keep worrying doesn't read well. I dunno, I guess I basically want reassurement that this is definitely an improvement. :) I'm starting to get fed up with this damn article now, lol. --Lobo512 (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response Maria. I've actually made a request at the Guild of Copy Editors for someone to go through it. I really am at the point now where I'm getting bored of staring at the article. I either need a big break or need someone else to do the tweaking. Particularly since I keep feeling like what I'm doing is not helping the article at all - it's just ended up with a load of stumpy, uninteresting sentences... I'm not feeling optimistic about it right now at all, but..well I certainly have no right to expect it to be FA standard. This is the first article I've ever worked on, and I've never been particularly talented at writing (adequate, but never "brilliant"). If it does happen, it will be mad.

I've just drafted a new version of the lead in my sandbox (day off work today), would you be willing to take a look? It's defintely a bit messy right now—I've kind of rushed it just to have something to work from. Make direct changes there if you feel inspired to. Thanks again. --Lobo512 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You know what...I think I'm just going to forget the idea. For now anyway. It's just stressing me out, which is ridiculous because it is not something that's worth getting stressed over. The article as it is provides a good overview of her life and career, with lots of nice pictures that FAC would probably take away, and I'm happy to have done that. I think I'm just going to leave it now and focus on other articles rather than scrutinising this one to death. I just don't have it in me. And I really don't want it to end up with me hating Kate, haha, I love her too much for that. :) Thanks for your advice so far, I've still learned from it so it wasn't to waste. --Lobo512 (talk) 15:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yllo - Hi, I am FClef who originated this article over several hours last night. Thank you very much for transforming the footnotes. Although I've been contributing to Wikipedia for quite a few years now, my references still deploy ancient - "dinosaur"? - formatting. I will however study your edits to try and train myself up a bit. Many thanks for making the article sparkle! (By the way, please keep an eye open on Wikimedia Commons - if a good picture comes in, perhaps that can be included.) You may, if wished, reply to my Talk page. With best wishes for a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. FClef (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

	Season's greetings and best wishes for 2012!
	Thanks for all you do here, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yllo, Hope you had a Merry Christmas and are enjoying a peaceful Boxing Day. I am a regular contributor to the above article. I did not do the Discography section, and have never edited it, but I notice there is a problem with the boxes in both sections:

• here the Peak chart position left and right column subheadings of UK and IRE seem to have got misplaced into the main column heading. Also footnote numbers 42 and 43 appear to have been erroneously imported into the Peak Chart Position column heading from their previous positions elsewhere in the table.
• here the Chart position column heading has incorporated footnote number 42.

I think this MAY have happened when someone added the fourth album (Caneuron Cymraeg), but I am by no means sure.

Could you kindly use your wizardry to restore the footnotes to their correct positions? Those footnotes, were, I believe, in the table itself, and you may need to refer to previous versions of the article for guidance.

With very many thanks, and I will revert to you for further advice on another huge matter, early in 2012. Happy New Year! FClef (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• Many thanks - although tables are still a mystery to me and the edit is a bit indecipherable for me. In that situation, would you, having found the offending edit, do a Revert (?) Or does that cancel out all the intervening edits? Or do you Undo? Or do you copy and paste the original copy into a new edit, to correct the column? Please advise best course. Thanks for continuing clarification. Are you an Admin, by the way?FClef (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Maria! I just stumbled across a rather odd situation (or at least I thought so) and thought I'd drop by and ask you about it... I see that on Dec 5 you started a GA review of The Satanic Bible, stating that it would take you a few days to post your review. Nothing further happened, until today when User:Wizardman deleted the GA page (so that it would reappear as needing review on the GAN page), saying that it appeared to have been abandoned. However, he does not appear to have contacted you, and as you have obviously been active, I find this a bit odd. Anyway, not sure if you were still interested in completing the review, but just thought that I'd inform you of the goings-on around that page (although you may already be aware of them...). Forgive me if I'm poking my nose in where it's not wanted or needed - I'll wander off and do something useful now... Dana boomer (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you like me to retrieve your initial post? I could perhaps drop it on the talk page, or somewhere else, if you believe it still relevant (I haven't looked at the article to see if anything has changed since your initial comments). Dana boomer (talk) 03:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I should've asked first; usually I check the reviewer's activity levels before doing that, not sure why I didn't that time. I restored the cmts and put it on the main talk page so that they're at least somewhere. I probably shouldn't be overly hasty in my deleting GA reviews, not the first time someone's poked me for that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Yllosubmarine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.