User talk:Allriskinrev

Larkin references
Hello! Glad to see you're still around :-) One section of the Philip Larkin page, the one on his work as a Librarian, was based on this article which was from Issue no. 4 of About Larkin. The web version is unpaginated, just one long page, and so the references in the WP Larkin article are a little unsatifactory. I was wondering if you happen to have a copy of the journal, and if so if you would add some page numbers to the references. Its not remotely important, but at the moment we're trying to polish the page up as best we can, so that it can be put forward to be a Featured Article; if it were accepted as a Featured Article, then it is possible Larkin would appear on the Wikipedia home page on the anniversary of his death next year. Yours,  almost - instinct 23:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for that! Is it a coincidence that your name is an anagram of Larkin's Liver?  almost - instinct 20:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yes, just a coincidence. Also an anagram of silverlarkin! Allriskinrev (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you've been following the Peer Review for the Larkin page... At any rate its thrown up quite a few issues that I haven't been able to deal with. I've made a long list of them on the Larkin talk page. I get the impression that you might be able to help with quite a lot of them ... :-)  almost - instinct 10:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello almost-instinct. Yes, I think I will be able to help with some of these issues. I have a copy of Booth's 'Trouble at Willow Gables', and a copy of 'Larkin at Sixty' (which, incidentally, Faber & Faber intend to re-issue during 2010), and I would be happy to look through these for specific reference if anyone has queries regarding them. I'll see if I can do something with the issues regarding the 'Recordings' section - a special interest of mine. I'll also try to include something - in the 'Fiction based on Larkin's life' section (if that's the correct place for it) - about the 1990 Alan Plater play, 'Sweet Sorrow'. I'm happy to try to help with specific queries if you think I might be able to do so.
 * For what its worth I think you're doing really great work there :-) I'm taking a day or two away from it to cool off; I get a bit emotional involved in the page sometimes!  almost - instinct 22:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Very much appreciated. Allriskinrev (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At the moment I can't look at the Motion biog (its locked behind a door whose key is in America...) - in the section 4 ("general issues") of the talk page there's a request for a page number. Are you able to help? Also, do you have a copy of the Larkin With Women play mentioned in the "Fiction based on..." section? On the peer review they suggest that a quick precis of the plot; I'm going to steal info from Faber's website, but maybe you could do better...  almost - instinct 11:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found the Motion quote: "In Haydon Bridge they lazed, drank, read, pottered round the village, and amused themselves with private games. Soon after the move, for instance, they began systematically defacing a copy of Iris Murdoch's novel The Flight from the Enchanter (1956), taking it in turns to interpolate salacious remarks and corrupt the text" (p.319). I do have a copy of 'Larkin with Women'; but there's also a review of the play, by Maeve Brennan, in 'About Larkin' No.9. I'll have a look at that. Allriskinrev (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oo, I'd love to hear what MB had to say! Thanks for page number. I'll insert  almost - instinct 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we can say that the era of gently plodding our way through the Peer Review is over: many changes are being made to the page without discussion etc, fresh wholesale reviews will be needed. I think, thus, that now is would be a good time for you to be bold and start making additions to/amending any part of the text you see fit: you clearly have all the necessary sources to hand. I will happy to tag along behind and help out (and User:KeithD and User:Snowmanradio have always kept a close eye on things like refs, formatting etc) so don't feel inhibited on that score.

On a completely different note, a friend of mine recently met a old man who has memories of Larkin from Oxford days. Here in my 'sandbox' is the email he sent me (personal details blanked out my me). I've been wondering if the Philip Larkin society would be interested in this, as there might be fresh biographical info to be gleaned here, but have been unsure who I ought to approach. Do you have any suggestions?  almost - instinct 09:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Booth, Swarbrick and Whalen. Sorry, I posted that request was so long ago that now I can scarcely remember what I was after :-/ Once upon a time I think the Larkin page made reference to these books in passing and I was hoping to get more details. At any rate, I imagine these books should be used by our page. Over to you, or someone like you ;-) ...  almost - instinct 10:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Re James Booth (2005) Philip Larkin: The Poet's Plight - would this be a useful volume for addressing some the outstanding questions from the Peer Review? eg "I feel like the analysis of Larkin's writing is a bit thin. The Creative output section doesn't contain any analysis of his novels, for example" and " In what specific ways did these other poets [Eliot, Auden and Yeats] influence Larkin's work?"  almost - instinct 20:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

3RR
As you've announced your intention to keep reverting me, you should know about our three-revert rule, which says we may not revert another editor's work, in whole or in part, more than three times in 24 hours, and that each revert counts toward the total, even if it involves different material each time. Violations can lead to a report and a 24-hour block. Please see WP:3RR. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Philip Larkin. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Abecedare (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked your account in response to this AN3 report for edit-warring at Philip Larkin using multiple IP socks. You are welcome to edit and discuss constructively once your block expires, but if you continue to make blind reverts to your preferred version, as you announced here, you may be blocked for disruptive editing even if you haven't breached the 3RR limit. Use the talk page to discuss the edits instead, and if you cannot arrive at a compromise with User:SlimVirgin, use one of wikipedia's dispute resolution processes instead. Abecedare (talk) 07:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have extended your block to 55 hours because of your use of IP socks to try and evade it. Any further attempts to evade the block through socks may result in further extension of the block, and/or perevention of your IPs from editing the  Philip Larkin article and talk page. Abecedare (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Allriskinrev, I want to emphasize that these blocks were not meant as some sort of punishment, but only to prevent disruption to wikipedia caused by your repeated reverts. So, as long as you can affirm that you won't continue to make "Mac edits" and will discuss issues on the talk page instead, I'll be happy to unblock you early. Let me know your thoughts. Abecedare (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussing at Talk:Philip Larkin
Just so you know, it is best to discuss major changes on the talk page of an article and wholesale reverting of those changes is not allowed on Wikipedia. Generally, what happens is that editors who are working on an article come to some sort of a compromise on the talk page. You may dislike what SlimVirgin added to the article, but the best thing to do would have been to go to the talk page and discuss it with all of the editors. We are all continuing to talk there and look forward to your return! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)