User talk:Midnightdreary/Archive 4

GA review for Al Aaraaf

I was delayed by unexpected visitors over the weekend. I have my notes on a printout version of the article now and all I need to do is find a moment to put them online in a consistent version you understand. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Al Aaraaf follow-up

The GA review is up for your perusal. Please leave me a note on my talk page in a fresh section if you need to draw my attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've commented on the review again. Congratulations on a job the particularly well done when it comes to the images. Do you know if any of the book sources are on Google Books? It would be nothing new, but it would help the reader who can't access the paper versions of the books. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• (taken from the talk page) I'm talking about the same thing, and I'm not sure what's the problem. Neal was saying that Poe was spouting "nonsense" by thinking he was greater than all other poets, but said that he might, after all, produce such a poem to prove he was right. Again, these are Neal's words. Neal wouldn't know a thing about Poe's career because, well, Poe didn't have one at that point. I'm not sure what's so wrong about giving Neal's prediction. Yes, it's POV, but it simply has to be if it's a section on how people responded. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The way it was written suggested someone else stated that Neal was right about Poe turning out to be a great poet. The claim of Neal you quoted said that Poe might "make a beautiful and perhaps a magnificent poem" If you meant to say Poe wrote such a poem to prove he was right about American poetry, it needs a rewrite to clarify that. Anyway, while important, it's not a point to stop the nomination on. I've promoted the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you read it wrong the first time and, once it's in your head, it's hard to get it out! I noticed the way you re-wrote it completely altered the literal meaning of the sentence into exactly what you mistakenly took it to mean the first time. With your second edit, you put it back to how it was intended. Thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rule of Three

I was really pleased to see the material about the rule of three sent to the Three Bears artilce and I noticed you commented. Please, feel free to add to the article if you wish. I don't think of it as "mine" so additions are truly welcome! ItsLassieTime (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Edgar Allan Poe article

Hi. Thanks for the correction to the Edgar Allan Poe article where I had added the Peter Ackroyd book

• Ackroyd, Peter (2008). Poe: a life cut short. London: Chatto & Windus. ISBN 9780701169886.

on Poe to references. You backed this out. So I added it to "Further reading". Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it definitely shouldn't be listed as a reference if it's not referenced. I've also removed it from further reading. I just don't think Wikipedia should be promoting books that were written with no intent to be accurate. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to take your word for it, I guess. Peter Ackroyd is a well-known biographer. The Times of London reviewed it and didn't say it was inaccurate, though.From The Times, February 1, 2008 "Poe: A Life Cut Short by Peter Ackroyd; Reviewed by Matthew Dennison" And the Christian Science Monitor reviewed it and didn't mention any inaccuracies as well."Book Reviews: Poe: A Life Cut Short. A concise new biography marks the 200th birthday of Edgar Allen Poe." By Heller McAlpin, Christian Science Monitor, January 21, 2009 edition. Having read these reviews and skimmed the book by Ackroyd last night, I'd ask you to provide scholarly citations or reviews showing the inaccuracies. Otherwise we must put this matter up for arbitration. Just for my edification, can you cite some literary reviews which demonstrate the inaccuracy of this book by Ackroyd on Poe? It's still seemingly a read book. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, friend. I'm just trying to figure things out. Please accept my apologies as a fellow editor and Wikipedian for anything untoward. I am not a Poe scholar, so I can't make any real judgments. The book by Ackroyd is being read and I saw it last night and read it, with a little skimming. It seemed to be useful in its own fashion. If it's an abomination of untrue facts about Poe, then it's a wrap. I don't want to get into any hassle about it or get you into one. I just asked a fellow editor who I have interacted with well before his advice on the matter. I did look up a couple of reviews and didn't find that they said it was inaccurate. The Times of London and The Christian Science Monitor to wit. So I didn't know what to make of your remarks on the face of it. I knew you meant it in good faith but I am on wobbly ground representing any scholarship on Poe. A priori, I respect your opinion, but I just wanted to see if there was any room in the judgment since people are reading Ackroyd's book on Poe. It's been published by a well-respected publisher. So I'm baffled, friend. Let's work it out. I'll likely defer to you if you are assured it's an inferior work. But I can't prove it has glaring inaccuracies in it, to myself, admitted I'm on thin scholarly ice. So, in summary, what is the basis for the inaccuracies? Has it been reported in the scholarly literature? Let's take the middle ground. Surely we have other work to do, like editing WP articles and enhancing the community grand opus. You said nothing impolite to me and I hope I didn't to you. If so, I apologize. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind note. We will work this out quite amicably. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Poe as child writer

The Category:American child writers definition says "People of the United States who were published authors when they were children or teenagers." Based on the Edgar Allan Poe article, his first publication was at the age of 18: "Poe's publishing career began humbly, with an anonymous collection of poems, Tamerlane and Other Poems (1827), credited only to 'a Bostonian'." Goustien (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Gordon Pym

Long time no see. :) It looks really great - you may need to format the few citations you've gotten from the internet, and see if there are any relevantish pictures that could be added, if possible. I wonder if there's any old illustrated editions of the book? --Malkinann (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I am in something of a similar bind with my own pictureless wonder, Torikaebaya Monogatari. Perhaps you could find an illustration of the cave scene from Robinson Crusoe that inspired a similar scene in Arthur Gordon Pym and put that in the sources section? The web references I was thinking of that need more formatting are the "Symzonia" and "Symmes introduction" references. The link labelled "Yann Martel on tigers, cannibals and Edgar Allan Poe - News - Canongate Home" is dead. Another source which I dare to suggest is Journey to the End of the Page, which discusses some of the commentaries on the work. What are your feelings on {{cite web}}?--Malkinann (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if you've seen it yet, but someone's reviewing the article and has some concerns. --Malkinann (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm up for that. :) --Malkinann (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the length of the plot summary, I have read the complaint that already it's too long. Perhaps it is. That's not for me to decide. However, I feel at least some of my additions were necessary. For example, the analysis (I'm not sure if this is the verbatim heading) section includes a discussion of the ship of corpses, yet until last night the plot summary had no reference to it. I felt this might be confusing to readers not already familiar with the work. Moreover, Pym is a nutritiously convoluted and meandering work. I think an accurate plot summary should reflect this. [[[User:LawyerGreg|LawyerGreg]] (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)}

Re: Horace Mann

Your remarks about the need to update the body of the page is true but I simply do not have the time to do it at this point. I figured the small edits to include information in the infobox is a better choice than doing nothing. Thanks again for the support. Saltcreek (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry Fielding's play

I responded here. It was a pleasant surprise to see that you were reviewing GAs. I made some updates and some fixes. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Al-Aaraaf

I'm sure you have an incredibly sincere desire to improve this article, but with respect to the Arabic connection (which is what I mainly follow), you show an unfortunate tendency to split this material into isolated disconnected fragments widely separated in the article. There needs to be one central location for the main discussion of the Arabic/Qur'anic connection, and this location cannot usefully be the first paragraph at the top of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, these are not alternative versions of the name of the poem, but alternative transcriptions of the Arabic word, so that reasoning does not apply (the variant transciptions of the Arabic word should be grouped together with the rest of the discussion about the Arabic/Qur'anic sources). And look at the edit diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Aaraaf&diff=prev&oldid=282890617 -- you had "Al-A`raaf" in two places, both inside and outside the parentheses. AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, transliterations can be italicized, but I'm not sure that there's any great need for that here. AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Really sorry about that, I do try to leave edit summaries but I just keep forgetting. Sorry again if I caused any undue hassle, I promise I'll remember in future. Great username by the way. --Heslopian (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Images for Poe

I am glad that you liked them! That book has illustrations for a couple of more stories. I have just uploaded the ones that we do not have any images on commons. As I find more time, I'll upload the others as well. We also have this for The Gold-Bug, but I've not put it on the article because I'm affraid it will be overcrowded with so many images. Perhaps you should have a look at that. One last thing: I also have an image for "The Assignation" which we do not have an article yet. Maybe you would like to write that one too (the more you write, the more I can translate ). İyivikiler... ho? ni! 09:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the Byam Shaw illustration. It is undramatic and poorly conceived. The suspended bug is barely visible. He should have de-emphasized all of the vegetation and emphasized the human figures.Lestrade (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Emerson

It would be one thing to have an alias section, but the article is clearer if he is refered to by name. I didn't say that the nickname cannot be refered to, but that he should be refered to by his name. As the article was the only way several college students studying Emerson knew that the Concord Sage refered to Emerson was an educated guess based on context. Emerson acheives both clarity and precision, and does not deny the possibility of his nickname being mentioned. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you're just reading into what I've said some dogmatic statement that the nickname cannot and must not be mentioned. I just said he shouldn't be refered to by his nickname because people who are not Emerson fans wouldn't automatically know who the nickname refers to. I never said that his nickname cannot be mentioned. Wikipedia isn't just visited by Emerson fans. I am just elaborating my original argument. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Common within a fanbase is not common for the general public. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Poe and the circulation of the SLM

No problem. When I read the New Yorker article, I was surprised, because I had never heard the different figures. As an English teacher, I have taught the inaccurate figures several times, and I wanted to make sure the newer figure (or, at least, the controversy) was a part of the Wikipedia page.waxwing slain (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be suspicious. Lepore's article had more than a couple incorrect "facts." Personally, I'm skeptical until I see Whalen's publication firsthand. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Midnightdreary's Day!

Midnightdreary has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Midnightdreary's day! For your outstanding work with Poe-related articles, enjoy being the Star of the day, Midnightdreary! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 ~~~~~ If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

OWH PR

Hey, Midnightdreary, I hope your schedule is thinning out nicely. The PR is underway here if you want to keep your eye on it; I've asked several people to take part, so feel free to do the same, especially if you know some poetry-minded individuals. Finetooth has agreed to do a copyedit, but the more eyes the better. María (habla conmigo) 20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember when I said I hate dealing with images? I hate dealing with images. I found reliable source material for the Irving painting, but while replacing the Megis image, I came across this portrait of Holmes at the National Library of Medicine's Images from the History of Medicine project. It's a better version of the portrait we used to have in the infobox. Even though there is no artist/date, and I haven't been able to find it in any publications as of yet, do you think it would be safe to upload? I would really prefer to have a photograph in the lead, so if this doesn't work out, I may just scan one from Hoyt circa 1865. Looks like we're getting fairly close! María (habla conmigo) 19:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If there's any concern about licensing, it's safest to put it in the Commons gallery, but not place it in the article. I'm okay with not using a photograph, though I see your point. How about File:OWHolmes1891.jpg or File:Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr 1859.png? I can crop out the frame on that one. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I'm not a big fan of the quotebox (or quoteboxes) in general. But, no big deal; if it can survive FAC, I won't mention it again. ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The 1859 one would work nicely, thanks. As for the quotebox, I'm really torn; I love how they turned out at Emily Dickinson, but Holmes's poetry is just too... much. Too long, too complicated. Ssilvers was correct in that there's not enough poetry in the article at the moment, however, so I'm not sure what to do. Will think on it over the weekend... María (habla conmigo) 01:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

ἕστησε

Hope you'll reconsider bailing on the STC main article. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought about it, but it would be such a shame if I hindered the work going on over there. It seems that I'm incapable of doing anything worthwhile on Wiki - or so I hear. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pondering, Midnightdreary. I, for one, have been noticing and admiring your work for some time, though we don't usually work on the same articles. I've been enjoying dipping into STC's conversation poems; it takes me back to my student days, when I was very keen on the Romantic poets. Best, Easchiff (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I really apreciate you helping me out. could you possibly give me a link to the message things. those rectangular things that say what your about and tell you if your going to be out or not. thanks!ray ray (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice message on my talk page. Check out the FAC for H.M.S. Pinafore if you have a chance: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S._Pinafore/archive1. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

LeMoyne

Re: this question: At that time, Jefferson Medical College was part of Jefferson College, right?--GrapedApe (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Jefferson Medical College. I do know that Washington & Jefferson College has never had a medical college; it's always been liberal arts. It shouldn't matter either way; LeMoyne was not an alumnus of W&J or its previous incarnations so he shouldn't be part of the W&J alumni category. The W&J people category seems more appropriate because he bailed the school out of near-bankruptcy at one point. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yay!

Congrats! It was great working with you. :) Next stop: TFA. María (habla conmigo) 13:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Aww, thanks for the kind words. The article really is quite excellent. If you ever need help in the future, you know where to find me. María (habla conmigo) 22:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations for your well-deserved success with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.. It was a pleasure to read. Finetooth (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

could i get you opinion

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Twain House GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Mark Twain House for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick Favor

Hey midnight, I like your pages, I have similar things happening here as the Poe Toaster. The wiki gurus wanna delete the article Norwich Visitor. I can't blame them, as I'm new to the wikiverse,but could you pop over to it and give me some advice. Thanks in advance. Cthistory (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

TFAR

FYI, I nominated Holmes's article at WP:TFAR; although I've been burned by the page's subjective favoritism in the past, I think Holmes has a good chance at six points. However, did you know that Holmes shares a birthday with Michael Jackson (also an FA)? Hmm. María (habla conmigo) 02:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Boo! Hasn't Jackson already been on the front page recently? :) I think there's a good chance for Holmes - I'll be rooting for him. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Margaret Fuller might have a chance at TFA in the near future; see [1]. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you were around more today than I was. :) Nevertheless, I hope the festivities were eventful! Longfellow should definitely be next, although it looks like it's fairly close already. Whenever you're ready for the push, you know where to find me. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, María (habla conmigo) 01:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Would you be so kind as to explain to me why you find it appropriate to remove the references I've been adding? The vague explanation that they are "already referenced" doesn't make sense -- what on earth is wrong with a further reference? It would have been courteous to at least post onto my talk page to say why you're doing it. Oh and saying you're doing it because there's a spelling mistake is just silly. It would have been less work to insert the single space! This is a fine way to treat a novice contributor. Drake-Halleck (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary. "Incorrect reference"!! You mean, a reference with a trivial typo which you could and should have corrected yourself. I have the book right by me, how dare you call it an incorrect reference? Drake-Halleck (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

A New Novice to the Brotherhood of Poe

Hello Midnightdreary.

My name is Jon, I'm from Denmark and I'm sort of new to both the use of the "Talk" pages of Wikipedia and the serious study of Edgar Allan Poe's work. So please bear with me. It appears you are experienced in the ways of both, however. I'd be glad to discuss the works of Poe, and maybe you could give me advice about which short stories to read/analyze. I've read some but far from all of Poe's short stories. The other day I read a story in Danish (my native language) so I don't know the exact original title, but it could be translated into something like "About my literary life and work" - a comedic short story supposedly written by a man called Psidusius Plump, the editor of the maganize "Ochinox Overdose" - a somewhat strange title for a maganize. Does this sound familiar? Anyway, as mentioned I haven't found out the short story's original title (but it would be possible with some effort). It appears this isn't one of top Poe stories, but I like it very much. Although I'm not a journalist or writer living in 19th century America, it appears to me this is hinting to the American world of journalism of Poe's own time - making it appear stupid, unfair and corrupt. What do you think?

By the way, does your username "Midnightdreary" hint to something related to Poe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynn144 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq.

Note: I've found out that the original title of the short story mentioned in my earlier entry, is "The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq.". After reading the short story in English I discovered that some of the names, including that of the narrator, have been changed in the Danish translation. In the later "Thingum Bob" is called "Psidusius Plump". Probably because a Danish reader (who possibly doesn't know English very well) would better understand the later name as an "odd name". A name that isn't a real name. Anyway that's my guess why the translater has changed the names in the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynn144 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Influence of E.T.A. Hoffmann on E.A. Poe

Hello.

I see that you reverted my edit on the main Poe page concerning the influence of Hoffmann on Poe. Considering the amount of time you've spent on maintaining the Poe articles, I don't blame you for being critical, and I won't press you to put the information and citation back in. However, you may be interested in the work, which can be viewed in full though Google Books here: http://books.google.com/books?id=dLYHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA12&dq=hoffmann+poe&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Thanks.

Thanks for your civil response here. My experience on Wikipedia has been that older sources (even over 50 years) are frequently challenged or entirely thrown out by other editors on this project. In many (not all) cases I tend to agree. The hypothetical argument is this: If Hoffman was such a strong influence, more writers would be writing about it, and certainly within the past couple decades. What I would recommend (if you want advice) finding more specific examples of Hoffman's influence, particularly on individual Poe works. "William Wilson," for example, may have a more acknowledged connection to a specific work from Hoffman, rather than offering a general blanket statement like "Poe was influenced by Hoffman." What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ann S. Stephens

Hi, just thought you should know - I've started working on Ann's article. She also now has an author page on Wikisource - Josette (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi there, I was really glad to see someone else helping me with the Young Goodman Brown article. I thought you were great, until I saw on your user page that you are a steelers and Ravens fan. Being a diehard Colts fan, I immediately changed my mind! Not really, just kidding. Keep up the great work! The Dark Knight ★ of Wikipedia 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Guilty as charged - likely the oddest combination in all NFL fandom! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It could be worse if I liked the Patriots...but I don't. However, I was born in Boston, and am now living in Indiana. Does that obligate me to be a Pats fan? I hope not... The Dark Knight ★ of Wikipedia 22:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Rerate please

Hello again! Is there any chance you might consider re-rating For want of a nail above start class? It's really getting to be a good article... and might be good for a DYK - which I don't know how to do. Thanks in advance! Timmccloud (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nathaniel Hawthorne

Nathaniel Hawthorne has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Godey's

Sure, they are the quotations, but take your point that they need to be formulated correctly. Thanks for the tips.EdFalzer (talk)00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Emerson - Schools and other institutions named after Emerson

Actually, before I added the list back I consulted with a an experienced Wikipedia contributor and reviewer and his thoughts on Emerson were: It is customary, I think, to list places, institutions, etc. which have been named in a person's honor in a "legacy" section. I see nothing wrong with this, and disagree that such a list would not be "encyclopedic"... particularly if the subjects listed had Wikipedia articles of their own." Of course, consensus should be reached. If the section is really not wanted then it should not remain --Rschwalb —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

I'm sorry I'm non considered "an experienced Wikipedia contributor" in your eyes. I don't believe I said anything about being "encyclopedic". Let's see where the discussion rolls. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

University of Massachusetts WikiProject

I noticed that you have attended the University of Massachusetts Lowell. You are welcome to join the WikiProject University of Massachusetts at your own convenience. If you have any questions for me, I will respond as soon as possible. Your participation is appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Midnightdreary. You have new messages at Pyfan's talk page.
Message added 19:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 19:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Josepha Hale

i just used cite books there so i could link to the google books of her works, which are in the public domain, change it if you like, but please leave the links (nice work btw) Pohick2 (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

i agree the cite books leaves something to be desired, (but it is convenient pasting google book links) but external links works too - i've been trying to add links to author articles as i see them adds some click thru info Pohick2 (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

i agree entirely, source is much preferred, but in stub land the vast ocean of authors could use some links to their writing, maybe a bot could be devised to copy the links to source. this article is not "start" class - more like a C going to A, are you going to start an FA review soon? Pohick2 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Ralph Waldo Emerson

Thanks for catching my error. Perhaps I rushed to judgment, but a very short message like that trips my nonsense antennae, I guess a bit too easily. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh... I don't blame you - the person could have been less succinct. It did look a bit cryptic! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Oh well. Good catch on your part. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quoted material

Thanks for pointing out WP:LQ. Earlier I had glossed over it. It makes sense now. Scwlong (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Tamerlane

At Wikisource:Tamerlane you left a note about "tried to fix formatting:; in my "sand box" at USER:Naaman Brown/Tamerlane I have updated the formatting of the poem (which was the 1829/1845 final version) following an edition of the poem edited by T.O. Mabbott and transcribed the 1827 version from a facsimile of "Tamerlane and Other Poems by a Bostonian". If you please, check it out and feel free to make any edits to Wikisource:Tamerlane. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to find this sandbox. I'm sure you did better than I could have but could you send me a direct link? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Naaman_Brown/Tamerlane It was created 16:20, 11 February 2010 so it might not show up search til all the servers get updated or some other technical glitch. I found half-a-dozen typos in my transcript of the original version, I'm never sure I don't need a proofeaders. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have correct some errors in transcription of the 1827 version, on my test page. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well done! I say go for it and plop it in. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Left a rambling note on Wikisource Tamerlane talk page. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ralph Waldo Emerson article

The reason I removed those internal links was because I thought they were too broad. I wondered why New York City, for example, would apply to him.

Anyway, I will keep my mitts off your corrections!!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the internal links are less about relating to the subject of the article in question and more about the, huh, what's this? factor. For example, an English speaker in New Zealand may not know that little town in Illinois the article refers to, but may want to know more. That's the point of links (and the whole Wikimedia project): wanting to know more. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Chapel

Yes! Excellent idea. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Fuller at TFA

Hey, Midnightdreary, how are you? Long time no see. :) Just FYI, someone nominated Margaret Fuller for WP:TFA to celebrate her 200th birthday later this month. I'm glad the article is still in such great shape, but of course it will unfortunately be overrun by jerks if the TFA nom succeeds. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes... TFA... It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... It's always both an honor and a headache! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Cramer editions of Thoreau

Our edits conflicted, without my knowing it was you, so I went ahead with my edit. Removing the promotional links, to my mind, solves the problem. If you want to removed them, I do not object, at least until we determine notability. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about it but it seems a bit promotional to choose one edition out of countless ones. If you feel comfortable with it this way, I'll acquiesce. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Let every sheep keep his own skin

Hi Midnightdreary, I was curious about this edit, a bit from the Thoreau article which you added a "citation needed" tag to where I had noted that diplomas were made on sheepskin vellum. When I removed your tag, you objected. Fair enough. But I see that your edit of 21 November had the net effect of removing the tag. Was this an oversight on your part, or did you change your mind on this subject? I note that someone else has removed the word "presumably" which I had previously used. To my mind it was (and is) safe to make the reference to vellum without citation if one uses the qualifier "presumably." Taking that word away makes the assertion rather less safe. I am still ok with it being citation-free, but am curious to know what your thinking here is. Boxter1977 (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, so I didn't actually remove the tag, did I? Another editor did when they added a dubious source. The tag was just not re-added when that inappropriate source was removed. Further, "presumably" is both a violation of weasel words and original research policies (as you, the editor, are the one doing the presuming and are not a reliable third-party source). --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi MD, it's not a big deal to me, I was just curious. When I removed the tag, you put it back. I understand why you did that. Then someone put in a citation in the wrong spot, and I thought you showed very incisive and clear thinking to point out that it should be in a different spot: that is, directly after the quote, rather than at the end of the sentence, to clarify that the source was one for the quote itself, rather than for an explanation of it's meaning. What I didn't get was why you didn't then re-ad the tag. Thus the question, has your thinking changed, or was it an oversight? Or perhaps (and fair enough, too, if this is the case) it wasn't worth the bother to you... As for the word "presumably", I think we will have to agree to disagree, but that is by the by. I was really just curious about your thinking on the tag. Boxter1977 (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do any of the adding or removing in this case. Most likely I didn't notice. Don't read into it! I'm not very active these days. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

File:WandJCollege-OldMain.JPG

Just a heads up: I have used your image of Old Main as a "Selected picture" at Portal:Washington & Jefferson College. It's located at Portal:Washington & Jefferson College/Selected picture/1. Thanks for the great picture. I'd love to see any more that you have from Washington & Jefferson College! --GrapedApe (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Signature

Done and added into the article. Cheers! Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Chiefly About War Matters

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Midnightdreary. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again, Sadads (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

One more, Sadads (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

too bad you already have a barnstar

Anyone who can edit The Raven in pop culture and remove a link to Edgar Allen Poe deserves kudos. :) Naaman Brown (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL! You can imagine how much that drives me nuts... ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Tell Tale Heart

The reason I've reverted you is because I dislike you're smart alleck attitude that you're the only one in control of the Poe articles, not to mention how you link multiple times as if anyone other than you is completely incapacitated and needs links to everything YOU think is important. Wikipedia is, as you said yourself, supposed to establish equality between editors but your general demeanor has shown that you only want the section to appear your way regardless of external thought, and I for one do not appreciate it, and it's a pretty sucky way to welcome someone to Wikipedia. 76.125.207.75 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

To establish consensus, I think we should discuss in a more public forum, rather than a user talk page. I've started the discussion at Talk:The Tell-Tale Heart. You do know that I was not the only one to have reverted you, right? Hopefully, the links I offered you to Wikipedia policy were helpful. I didn't meant to come across as smart-alecky; just trying to do the right thing as an experienced Wikipedia editor. One more link as response, either way: please comment on the content, not the editor. Do you think it's helpful to call me a retarded, shitty and deaf/blind/mute? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

your latest edit at The Raven

Hi Midnightdreary, I'm puzzled how a superfluous comma could be dubious and unsourced, . I assume this was a booboo: [2]? (And I admit, curious as to how it happened! :)) Maedin\^talk 13:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I was trying to revert the vandalism edits by User:Kenndyjames. I went back to the version prior to his vandal edits, not realizing you had already reverted all the way back to an August 24 version. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, okay. I knew it was an undo of some sort! Sorry for the confusion, :) Maedin\^talk 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries... All that really matters is that the vandalism is gone. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

bibliographies

Aside from the comment on the busy work some make for themselves, bibliography is something I've been thinking about a lot. Poe is an excellent example. I had been wondering where the right place is for this sort of thing, especially where the author is very notable; here seems like the right sister site, and the 'list' is a great example. Other authors might have the details in their article. Do you fancy helping me think out loud, with a model for a less well known author, so I'm not messing with featured and high-traffic articles? cygnis insignis 12:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean a listing of the works by the author, or about the author? Either way, I think I'd look at the main article (e.g. the author's article) first. If it's short, keep the bibliography right there. If it's already long enough, create a seperate forked article. I'm generalizing, of course. Which author are you thinking about? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question ;-) Works by would be the first thing to split, about being found as the 'main' article's own references. I'm also thinking about how this is handled at the other place, in the author namespace. Wikipedia is ideal for creating verifiable content about works, annotated lists and so on, I linked your bibliography from en.ws for this reason. Forking may not be the way to look at it, the article or list would follow the title. It is worth noting here that bibliography has a shifting or flexible meaning. I suppose a careful outline of the page's scope is given by the lead, as you have done. cygnis insignis 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cmt

Thanks. Are you a local? Or do you have a particular interest? upstateNYer 21:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I just like dead people! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes

Please weigh in on Talk:List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes#Inclusion of episode segment links, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure why I would want to be involved with that discussion. Carry on, nonetheless! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Margaret Fuller

I would appreciate it if you could check my edit ([3]) and see if I cited properly. I'm new here and I'm still learning. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I won't edit the Margaret Fuller article ever again. Fuller's formal education included three schools instead of one according to all sources except Wikipedia. I apologize if the addition of this information and my imperfect way of citing sources messed up this featured article. You can delete the information I added and go back to the version that says that Fuller only attended the Groton school. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't be dissuaded from editing this one or any other article. You can see that I've gone ahead and formatted the references that you added so there's no problem. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

American Renaissance

Hello, Midnightdreary. Sorry to bother you again. I've been working on the article about the American Renaissance and I'm finding very few sources that include Emerson's Representative Men in the list of "major works" or Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables. I did find many sources that say that Emerson's essays Fate and Illusions belonged to the canon but very little about "Representative Men."

Also, the first paragraph favors Mathiessen's very rigid definition of the American Renaissance, especially the very short time period (1850-55) and the list of authors. The canon now includes many authors but especially Margaret Fuller. Can I add her to the list of authors in the first paragraph? What do you think? Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think for any list it is important to have a source. Lists always invite cruft - the idea that people can just keep adding and adding. I don't think I see The House of the Seven Gables elevated to an important work of literature (case in point for the cruft comment?) and I think Emerson's Representative Men is a stretch as well, partly because the crux of the movement seems to be fiction. Though, with that said, I've seen his "The American Scholar" speech listed as a catalyst for the renaissance, if we can find a source that agrees. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a very informative and concise entry on the American Renaissance in the Merriam Webster's encyclopedia of literature [4]. Is Merriam Webster's considered a credible source? It lists Emerson, Thoreau, B. Alcott, Ripley and Fuller, Melville, Whitman and Poe as major writers of the American Renaissance. Mathiessen focuses on Emerson, Thoreau, Melville, Whitman and Poe but M. Fuller has definitely entered the canon.

The thing that is interesting about the Merriam Webster's entry is that it distinguishes between successful writers who dominated the contemporary literary scene (like Longfellow and Holmes) and writers who were recognized as major influences in retrospect (like Poe and Melville who were maligned by contemporary critics and readers).

Another source is The American Renaissance (edited by Harold Bloom ISBN: 0791076768). On page 370 it says "literary trends of the American renaissance period and the pivotal works of such writers as Emerson, Thoreau, Alcott, Hawthorne, Poe, Dickinson, and Whitman."

So my suggestion is to mention Fuller and maybe Dickinson and B. Alcott in the opening paragraph of the article.

I agree with you about Emerson's Representative Men and especially The House of the Seven Gables. Can I go ahead and delete The House of the Seven Gables? The Scarlett Letter is Hawthorne's magnum opus his major contribution to the American Renaissance. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference works like dictionaries are not good sources for this project. I'm not sure about the Bloom book; if he's "editor", it's likely a compilation, which is not a good source either. Don't worry about the lede paragraph too much though; the lede is just a quick intro but the meat of the topic will be in the article below it. That's where Alcott, et al can go. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

SLM

Midnightdreary, as I ponder weak and weary, the source I submitted is

http://www.archive.org/stream/southernliterar01minogoog#page/n19/mode/1up

page 9 under Illustrations that lists the "editors" of the Southern Literary Messenger, written by one of the editors, Benjamin Blake Minor, L.LD.

The list of editors and publishers is naturally of importance when delving into the history of a newspaper. However, there is a link that goes to a POE society that lists more editors and in detail. Which is the better of the two I do not know but all editors, IF known and has a source, should be included in the information. Too, the Southern Literary Messenger is not about only Edgar Allan Poe just as it is not so much about Matthew Fontaine Maury who was also an editor and changed US Naval history with his articles. What I have herewith written is mere "food for thought" to better the article on the newspaper and I have given my source. If anyone can produce better information and sources on the article, then I am all for that.

With all due respect to you, I am, William Maury Morris II (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why I'm getting such a lengthy and somewhat accusatory message here - I can't find where I said the article should only focus on Poe, which you seem to allege... My only concern is the source, which is clearly not a third-person source (please see relevant policy on reliable sources). The information you added is still there, though I took the liberty of adding some proper formatting. If you want to argue the relevance of a list of editors, I ask two questions: (1) Why doesn't the article on The New York Times have a complete list of editors? (2) Why isn't it formatted into a prose discussion of the magazine's history? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean to offend you personally in any way. On the contrary, I appreciate fellow workers. What I wrote was not an accusation. I regret any misunderstanding. Your formatting looks excellent. I mentioned Poe because there was much about him including two external links that were removed because they were dead links. But the SLM was beginning to look like a POE article including the image on a Poe article. You mentioned something about my "source being confusing" so I simply supplied that source. It's that simple. Nothing was intended to offend anyone. We build together. My point about Editors remains my personal viewpoint. You ask me about another magazine with questions a and b. I reply that I do not know why that magazine is formatted the way that it is and I have not seen it. Perhaps if I knew the editors of that magazine I would include them. They are, afterall, part of a magazine's history. I, like other workers, try to better articles and I meant no offense nor harm in any manner towards you nor any other fellow workers. "We build together". Still, please accept my sincere apology for any misunderstanding due to my poor writing skills. Too, I wish you and all other workers a Happy New Year. May we strive, in peace, to build a better and better wikipedia and wikisource together. Kindest regards, William Maury Morris II (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're not going to look at the blue links I provided? Hrumph. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure! Since you've asked I will reply that I looked at both the "Midnightdreary" User page and your "talk" page which are both blue links. Too, I looked at your "contributions" and your "edits" and I saw a trouble maker using profanities. I will now let you know that I did look at the links you provided and will state that, for me, The New York Times is an excellent article that is properly formatted and shows many sections. The same can be done with The Southern Literary Messenger if someone wanted to take the time to do it and knew the proper way to format it as opposed to "prose" and we do (I suppose) have a lot of editors. I myself also like Poe and years ago had a very large website about him. I once lived in Richmond, Virginia for several years and I visited the Poe Museum a few times but it has been changed now. I went there too when it was under renovation within. Articles were found beneath the floor boards including old coins. When one goes upstairs and turns to the right there was a room painted bright Chinese Red with a black stuffed raven on a pedistal in the center of that room. On the wall was Poe's poem of the Raven and illustrations that were added. Now I figure this is too much writing here but you asked and I decided to go beyond a short answer because I know you can delete this entire text. Poe also was an editor on Matthew Fontaine Maury's articles on bettering the U. S. Navy -- articles that Poe approved of. Any more questions? <smile> Happy New Year and don't let that fellow destroying articles make you feel too weary Midnightdreary. Hang in there and you may yet get another barnstar -- but have you a barn? ;0) Barnstars are all over Virginia. They were used to help hold the walls intact and were threaded on the ends. The barn star itself was a "nut" that screwed onto the threaded ends of the metal rods for support. (not proofread and not needed to be) Kindest regards, William Maury Morris II (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This has clearly gone outside the realm of improving articles; I didn't mean to engage further than that and most of this is just confusing me. I'll kindly end this "conversation" now. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)