User talk:Anna Roy/Archive 8

Categories question
Hi Spanglej, would you mind advising me on categories currently deemed suitable for articles on literary works, particularly on single short stories. In your opinion, are the categories o.k. that were chosen for the only entry on an Alice Munro short story on enWP (so far)? I am thinking of preparing more entries on short stories by Alice Munro (for a preview, see the red links here), hence my question. Thanks, --Jackentasche (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sure. Yes, I think they are ok, as is. Possible cats to add to a short story (that I can think of) is, the publisher, the year, any awards won, the country of origin, a magazine where it may first have been published (such as cat: Works originally published in The New Yorker), Short stories adapted into films, places in fiction (Vancouver, London etc). Also cat by theme such as cat:War short stories, cat:Historical short stories and fiction cats such as Cat:Feminist fiction, Cat:post/Apocalyptic fiction. The fiction umbrella cat is probably one of the largest applicable. You might think about creating cats such as 20th/21st century Canadian short stories if you can populate them well. 'Cat:21st-century American novels' exists. Borges is known primarily for his short stories and there are many cat'd articles about his works, such as "The Garden of Forking Paths" and "The Library of Babel". Annie Proulx also a high profile short story writer with some fairly good articles. See Brokeback Mountain (short story). I don't think  the table at List_of_short_stories_by_Alice_Munro works. It's complicated because of the need for the key. Also not sure of the need for Short_stories_by_title. It would seem that organising by books is enough. Again, I recognise that a huge amount of work has gone into it all. I hope that helps. Span (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It sure does, thanks for pointing out examples. --Jackentasche (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Btw, how is a category created? An example that comes to mind: cat:Works by Alice Munro - thanks, --Jackentasche (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Lots of useful info on category creation at Categorization, Categorization, Help:Category and FAQ/Categorization. Have a read. I'm not very up on the arcana of cating. It would certainly be worth identifying all the articles you want for population before you create the category as the deleters may come down on you in two seconds flat if they think there aren't enough articles to justify the cat or the cat is in some other way redundant. Cats work like a tree and so you'd want to find out what parent category your littler cat will go in. For example the cat tree: Feminist science fiction novels‎ > Feminist science fiction > Feminist fiction. Here Feminist fiction is the parent category. Cat:Works by Canadian writers might be your parent cat > Works by Alice Munro > Short stories by Alice Munro.   already exists, right? Hope that helps. Span (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your kind words at List of short stories by Alice Munro. It helps more than you know. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Clever tables are one of the many arcane WP wonders I'm not much up on. It's lovely when they work well. Thanks for that. Span (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Diana Mitford
She was not "the" daughter, which implies the sole and only daughter; she was "a" daughter, one of several, which is correct grammar and identification.Kitchawan (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Diana Mitford was the daughter of David Bertram Ogilvy Freeman-Mitford" is better English and not ambiguous. It doesn't imply he had one daughter. For example
 * William Shakespeare (an FA) "William Shakespeare was the son of John Shakespeare... the third child of eight and the eldest surviving son."
 * "Son of former Bank of England governor appointed CEO of UKFI". Robin Leigh-Pemberton, Baron Kingsdown has more than one son.
 * The Bible. "When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Hesli, the son of Naggai, the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon, the son of Nahshon, the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Ram, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah,  the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,  the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Heber, the son of Shelah,  the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,  the son of MethuSelah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." I assure you, most of these people had other sons.


 * "Charles Dickens was the son of a pleasant but wholly ineffectual clerk." Dickens had three brothers: Alfred, Frederick, Augustus.


 * Is that enough? Span (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Re about primary/secondary sources
Hi, I see you are doing a hard job in improving Gabriele Tinti (writer) but appearently you fail to see what secondary source means... all your sources except one are primary sources, ie a museum that promotes its events or a vendor site which sells a book of him are unusable as blatantly primary, unreliable and non-independent. The page was almost certainly created by a PR to "PROMOTE" the notability of the subject, but I still fail to see where his actual notability lies. I made my own searches, but almost all the sources I have found refer to the actor of the same name. If you want to proof the writer's notability you need to provide REAL secondary sources, such as newspapers and magazines articles, reviews of his works and so on. My best, Cavarrone 15:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your conception of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. A personal blog, a private website, a twitter feed, a youtube video of a Tinti would be a primary source, featuring material that we know Tinti wrote. The Poetry Library or the Boston Centre for the Arts featuring his work is at one step removed. They are independent bodies. Why would they be 'unreliable'? The Guardian review books they sell, that doesn't make them a primary source or unreliable. Time Out promotes events, does that make its write ups unreliable? Faber promotes its authors but that doesn't make the site primary or less reliable. You may not think the sources are strong enough to prove notability, but that is a different issue, not to do with PSTS. Span (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you are way too confused about what secondary sources means. A press release of a library promoting its event is a primary source, period. A press release is always a primary source. A subject becomes notable when/if he has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Read WP:NRV: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Cavarrone  21:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As I mention above, I am discussing primary sourcing, not notability. Span (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for finding a citation for the information I removed for Tom Baker. I sincerely appreciate your edit. --Yamla (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Damon Runyon
Request for clarification, please.

You deleted a list of Runyon short stories that I added to the Damon Runyon article a while back, saying that WP does not include lists of stories. Fair enough, but I can find plenty of examples of articles where authors' short stories are listed - and very useful these lists are, in my view. If you mean that the list of Runyon short stories really needs a separate entry and to be properly sorted, I would agree with you, and I can attend to that. But I won't bother if you simply intend to delete it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertEricDavies (talk • contribs) 20:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Replied on your talk page. Span (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Dwight Foster Hamlin
Hi Spanglej,

Why did you revert my edit? It is synonomous. Robert4565 (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Benedict Cumberbatch
In what way do you believe the infobox in Benedict Cumberbatch was "screwed up"? And why have you removed the list subtempltes? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The infobox was in a mess the formatting had fallen out. I wasn't making a comment on listing, tagging, html etc. Span (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not the version you reverted from. You reverted from this. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Mojomuning did a self revert two minutes before my edit, which I didn't see. I was attempting to put back in some form of infobox formatting. We were editing at the same time. Span (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Coren Mitchell
Thanks for the feedback, but perhaps you would like to read this WP:BOLD and also note that no comment had been made for two months after I had proposed the name change, she hasn't updated her website in over a year, and there is no major outlet that now doesn't credit her as Coren Mitchell! The non-consensus was rightly in place 12 months ago because of the differing usage, but that is no longer the case. Andy (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ben-Hur
You wrote: "Adding to the lead suggests a link. Any ref connecting Kings and the novel?" I thought it was clear from my note on the change that I was using the very reference already cited. If you don't think that reference is valid or relevant, please delete the entire sentence about the name meaning "Son of white linen." If that is valid, then the rest of the Mandel entry, which I summarized, is equally valid. I might point out it is absurd to suppose that Wallace, in choosing a name for his Biblical hero, would be unaware of the actual use of that name in the Bible. I might also point out that saying Ben-Hur means "Son of white linen" is as absurd as saying Robertson means "Son of fame-bright" or Ibn-Ali means "Son of the highest"; the primary referent is the name Hur, not the dictionary definition of the word. Please restore my edit or provide a better reason why it's out of place. Thanks in advance. Languagehat (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the reference Who's who in the Jewish Bible is just about the Bible, not Ben Hur. To mention "one of King Solomon's twelve district governors, responsible for providing food from his district, the territory of Mount Ephraim" is to suggest a connection between the novel and the Bible. It may be so, but we'd need a reference to support the link. In my research I have not seen a connection ever made or that there is any allusion between the two. Span (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Jacques Derrida
Hello, Spanglej. I would like to notify you that there has been going some sort of edit-warring on this article during the past two weeks. Your input in the relevant talk page will be welcome.
 * I have pinged you. Span (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the encouragement. Inglok (talk) 14:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. Glad to see you weren't away for long. Span (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

GA nom for Horrible Histories
Hi Span, I'm currently in the process of shepherding the Horrible Histories TV series article through it's GA nomination. The reviewer tells me it might even be FA material, which is exciting, but also means the review is much more exhaustive. I do feel like her suggestions are excellent, and taking (many of) them I think has resulted in a stronger article... just feeling a bit overwhelmed by how much is involved, and that some further assurance that I'm on the right track wouldn't come amiss. :) If you have the time, would you mind taking a quick look at the review thread and seeing what you think? Shoebox 2   talk  16:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Jo L. Walton
Hi -- thanks for the tip! I'm a bit new at this obviously, but I'll see how it goes :) Catcollier (talk) 23:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If these articles are dear to your heart, it might be worth taking a copy for your own records in case they are deleted, for future reference. If they are removed, don't take it personally. Very many writers, musicians, public speakers etc create their own WP biogs for self promotion, which doesn't cut much ice around here. More criteria detail is given here and here. Best wishes Span (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Robert William Service
Dear Spanglej,

I have undo your changes about the references I added regarding several biographical elements regarding Robert W. Service. As you may not have noticed, the blog about Robert Service is quoted officially in the French wiki page of Robert Service. At that time, I already explained to users who have undone my works that I am Charlotte Service-Longepe, the great grand daughter of Robert Service and I have launched this blog in 2012 to keep my great grand father memory alive and talk about his works and life. I tried to share interesting facts with wikipedia readers besides of my articles on my blog. Last December, I have published as a voluntary work a biography of Robert Service in the book Le Pays de Dinan 2013 edited by the Municipal library of Dinan (France).

Thank you for your understanding

Best Regards,

Melle Charlotte Service-Longepe


 * Hi Charlotte, thank you for your message. I reverted the link as WP:EL does not encourage blogs or fansites. As this case is somewhat of an official site it might be fine. I won't revert it. If are seeking to create an official archive / memorial to Service, perhaps as full blown website would be a more appropriate format than a blog. But that is another question. Because of the EL guideline, you might find that the link is removed by other editors. Each edition of WP in various languages is run independently. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help. I understand the careful rules to avoid inappropriate website. I will have to work on a better format than the blog. Best wishes, Charlotte

Giovanni Fontana the poet
Thanks for the report. He appears clearly notable. A lot of book and journal sources about him, even if mainly offline. I created a stub, added a couple of book sources and removed (for now) the part of text I was unable to source. See Giovanni Fontana (poet). Feel free to work on the page. --Cavarrone 07:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nick Grey (February 24)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [.


 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Your attention needed at WP:CHU
Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 03:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Lightning process
Hi there, I'm new to wikipedia so excuse any bad protocol :) Could I ask why you've reverted all my revision of the inaccuracies in the lightning process (LP) page? Just to be clear, I am the designer of the LP, and a PhD researcher so am pretty well informed on the facts about this process. I've asked for some help from the wiki community recently in getting it edited to make it less biased and more accurate, but none was forthcoming, so in order to address some of the points that are just plain wrong I've started to edit it myself.

Main points; daily mail article, for which I was the main interviewee did not report my theory accurately my professional title is wrong research data is out of date bias- the entry has been edited in the past as part of a smear campaign against the LP but doesn't reflect the published figures, as is the asa ref, which is an attempt to undermine the LP and doesn't represent the facts

Happy to discuss any of the edits so hopefully we can get it in decent factual shape, look forward to hearing from you. Phil Researchpsyc (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have replied on the article talk page. Anna (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

...quoting Alice
You are quite right Span, as always. Coming to your talk page to thank you, I saw the history of your draft AfC and took the chance to make one or two small tweaks (hope that's ok). Btw, have you thought of candidating your talk page for the best look on WP? Best wishes, 81.147.166.111 (talk) 11:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are very kind. I have to say that I am a little uncomfortable with the short quote attributed to Alice about religion and Beethoven. It is two short sentences with an ellipsis, which feels a bit like a sound bite without any context. Longer quotes tend to given more of a rounded sense of perspective, I find. I am hoping to have time in the next few days to go more thoroughly through various sources and fill out the article a little. Thanks for making changes to the AfC. It's actually not my page. I edit to help improve pages by newbie editors. Nice to meet you. Span (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I take your point about the ellipsis—an editorial concern which I did also consider somewhat when adding the quotation. Given the overall context it didn't seem to me a real issue, though that was obviously just my individual editorial judgement and I was doubtless influenced by the use of the same quotation on BBC News channel coverage (soundbite?). Now I'm not so sure it was the right decision... The soundbite concern you raise is a relevant one, imo. Maybe the sentence should be tweaked or removed? (though the intro about her faith in the power of music is undoubtedly npov and, I think, informative). I trust your judgement. Best,  81.147.166.111 (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not a biggie. I think it touches on what seems to be an important aspect of her personal philosophy. I think it just needs filling out a little. I like quoting people in their own words, as it seems good to have themselves presented as they tell it (unmessed with), but this approach can sometimes come perilously close to overusing primary sources (interviews). I'll leave it for now and revisit it soon. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree :) 81.147.166.111 (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Trivia rules OK?
...and not just in the uptake of technology itself perhaps? Imo, this canny observation provides a cogent argument in favour of editors such as yourself who are helping keep Wikipedia's freely available online content broadly encyclopedic. Championing the substantial (rather than merely trivial) possibilities of our non-paper format. Just a thought, 81.147.166.111 (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this and fixing my new section link. I wouldn't have spotted the error for years. Anna (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Russell Blake (February 28)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [ Articles for creation help desk], or on the [.


 * Please remember to link to the submission!

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Your note re Writers' & Artists' Yearbook
Hi Libby, thank you for your edits on Writers' and Artists' Yearbook. Thanks for getting it live. I wondered at your excisions. I'm not sure why most of the reception section was cut. Why remove reviews from the Independent and the BBC? Why not mention that the book has sold over 2 million copies, sourced by the BBC? The previous reviewer (wrongly) stated that there was not enough independent coverage of the book. There is now less than before and some other editor could well rock up and challenge notability. I have to say, the whole AfC system seems to be in a hell of a mess. Anna (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna and thanks for your message. I think possibly some of the other reviewers were harsh on notability, but reading it the reception section seemed to be a vehicle for the kind of stuff you find on book-jacket reviews. It's been around since 1906 so I'm not sure that some of the information collated in this fashion worked – if it were a novel recently released I think it might be more appropriate. Also bear in mind the BBC site quoted frequently is very old and not, if my reading is right, as official as some other sources at the BBC. And The Times has gone behind a paywall, as you know, so I couldn't verify the ref. My primary goal was to get it passed as I think it deserves a page. I also added a lot of material with solid references from live web sources. Any article is always 'a work in progress' so it's possible to add material back, but you always need to bear in mind WP:NPOV (neutrality) and this had failed on that count twice. As to the AfC process, if it's a mess it's because there are too few volunteer reviewers helping out – there's a backlog drive right now. If you want to see how bad the situation is, check out my user page and click the link – it tells you all you need to know. I'm a volunteer and everyone else is – so if you think you can help, please join us. Best wishes. Libby norman (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Libby, sorry for the tone of frustration, I know it's not your fault. I do help out on trying to knock some of the pages into shape, which is why I am frustrated. I added in the reviews because the article had been repeatedly rejected on notability grounds. Which was ludicrous as it had reviews from the Times, the BBC and the Independent; a book that sells 2 million copies a year, with 47 000 references on Googlebooks. The backlog seems to be bringing in a lot of novice editors who are rejecting articles without knowledge of basic criteria. I know it's fairly subjective sometimes but it seems a waste of everyone's time and a major reason for the backlog in the first place. Yes, I should become a formal reviewer but I am unsuccessfully trying to reduce my WP time. Ho hum. I will revisit the article and add back in some deleted parts. Highbeam is a good place to read paywall articles, if you have it. By the way, it's really not good practice to delete a reference just because you don't have it to hand. Best wishes Anna (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Anna. Points taken and I do hear where you are coming from on a number of counts! Certainly, it's far easier to fail an article than do the work of considering whether it is actually notable enough. Also, criteria do, over time, seem to get rather more convoluted and interpretations vary widely – I have had a fair few debates recently over what counts as a good source, particularly as there is, arguably, a 'behind the curve' thing going on with trad v non trad media (blogs, etc) that seems to discriminate hugely against beauty and fashion industry sectors, where blogging is way more mainstream. I tend to avoid The Times, Highbeam and any other subscription-based services because unless you've captured and archived in perpituity minus the paywall/trial bit it becomes frustrating and less valid down the line. Refs from The Bookseller and PA are solid, as are some of the add-ins from The Independent, and so on. In terms of the reception section, I'd be cautious – anything likely to be interpreted as purple prose, whatever its source, may mean a banner from an editor. In terms of improvements, the website seems to be an area that could be developed (good writers on there) and also more foreword writers. Spent quite a long time trying to find references to prove Iris Murdoch wrote the foreword in 2003. This sort of information is highly noteworthy but, as ever, finding the references external to the source – whether web or newspaper/magazine based – can be challenging. Onwards and upwards and best wishes. Libby norman (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I agree that there is a lot of room for interpretation, but disagree that refs you can't immediately view are less valid. Most FAs are referenced by books that few readers will have to hand. That readers do not have a biography in front of them in no way weakens the cite. It's easier for editors to add and check accessible newspaper cites but that's about all. And reviews of work are standard, certainly in biographies and articles about written works. WP:AUTHOR says that notable criteria are that: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." And so "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" are added, especially if editors keep rejecting articles on the basis that "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews are not added". There's nothing purple about quoting newspapers and the BBC. Also, I note some reviewers are deleting info for not being sourced. All info doesn't have to be sourced unless an editor is challenging its efficacy. As it says at Articles for creation "sourcing policies require inline citations for only four specific types of material, most commonly: direct quotations and contentious material (whether negative, positive, or neutral) about living persons." Anna (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Libby norman and Anna: Since Anna has asked me to comment, here are some of my thoughts:  (1) Yes, some of the Afc reviewers have been known to decline articles for not having enough inline citations even when the policies don't require them.  This is a problem, I agree, but since Libby was planning to accept the article herself, it didn't affect the final review.  (2) I looked back in the history to see the now deleted "Reception" section.  The problem with quoting reviewers in an article rather than just using the reviews to back up facts is that the quotes are almost always cherry-picked to make the subject seem more important and interesting.  I've not yet seen an article in which a reviewer was quoted as saying, "This book was of very little interest."  I agree with Libby's removal of the quotes.  If the reviews didn't back up specific facts in the article, I would have just changed them into general references in case they were useful to someone expanding the article later. (3) I think the two of you have had a fruitful discussion, and you both have been working to improve the article. It's not just in Afc that reviewers disagree in good faith about specific points; now that the article has its own talk page, this process will likely continue with perhaps more editors getting involved.  Isn't it great that Wikipedia has one more interesting article?  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Libby norman. It is entirely standard to include quotes from reviews in a reception section. See articles such as Maya Angelou, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, The Hunger Games, "Ode on a Grecian Urn", To Kill a Mockingbird or any book-based FA. It's generally how reception sections work, whether using direct or indirect quotes or synopsis. The W&AYB article might seemed to have cherry picked quotes, but that is because the article is just starting out. I tried to find negative reviews and found none, perhaps because it is primarily a reference book. I raise this as many AfCs are getting deleted and not made live because the basic WP guidelines are not being applied. Other areas of WP article dev seem to have more checks and balances in place for overseeing the process. Anyway, I can take this up on the noticeboard if I want to pursue it. Thank you both for your input. Anna (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:NAMB
Hi. Please read WP:NAMB. The article title is not ambigious. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Nick_Grey
Hi Anna. Thank you very much for your attention and help with the article. I have spoken to a couple of moderators who believe that this article is overly promotional in tone and that the detail about Mr Grey's professional life as an engineer, his inventions, the successful business he started that bears his name and so on, are all irrelevant. In addition, they have questioned whether Mr Grey is 'notable' despite him receiving regular national and local media coverage both as a business leader and as an engineer. I have undone the change you made which restored the detail about Mr Grey's inventions for this reason, in the hope of the more skeletal article being published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deference1 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * Per WP:AN/I, I must notify you that you have been mentioned in a discussion involving an incident on WP:AN/I. The discussion can be found here .Vuzor (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

comments
I have made some comments on the talk p. of an editor who did some reviews of your articles. I urge you not to reply to them there; it will not be helpful. If you get angry at anyone, no matter how well deserved, you will not come out ahead.  DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Craig
I'm not sure why keep reverting a more up to date image from 2012 with an older image from 2009 which is more blurred, taken when Craig wasn't looking (see WP:MUG) and has been voted against on the article talk page. The page editors had the discussion about this and reached a conclusion. The conclusion does not breach any guidelines. If you have a problem with the newer picture I suggest you take it to the article talk page. Anna (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not permit images which are intended to disparage people, per WP:MUG. Local consensus does not overturn policy. This is explained in WP:CONLIMITED. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The 2012 photo is a press shot. The 2009 was taken by a passer by when Craig didn't know he was being photographed. It is older and blurred. Anna (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The best option is to request for someone to upload a recent and clear picture of Daniel Craig which doesn't violate policy outlined in WP:MUG as well as WP:OI. This would resolve both issues. Trisha Borsagi (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sissinghurst Castle Garden
I've done some expansion of this which may whet your appetite. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. I was there in the summer. Such a gorgeous place. Just a note that edit summaries of changes help all us other editors so much - enabling us to see quickly how the article develops and make head and tail of changes. Also, as far as I know, all images on WP are still right aligned by default, unless it's a pic of a face looking right, in which case it's placed on the left. I hope that helps. Best wishes Anna (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it. I know I can be poor on edit summaries; my overall average isn't bad, but when I'm doing a major re-write, I struggle to remember. As to images, not sure I'd agree that all aligned right would be best, or is a requirement. Would it not be a little repetitive? But still playing around. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This link suggests it's a good idea as some browsers process left and right aligned images differently. I think it makes it easy for the reader to scan as the eye knows where the images will be. I always place images well away from a heading else the formatting gets all odd. But I'm not much on WP because I get caught up with such infinite considerations and it gives me a headache. It's great you are adding content. Thanks for that. Best wishes Anna (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * And we're now at FAC, here, Featured article candidates/Sissinghurst Castle Garden/archive1. If you had the time to comment, your thoughts would be very much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Lordy, you have done a lot of work. It seems the team did great work together. The article is beautifully written and very thorough. I had a few thoughts to offer; no biggies, but things to consider, perhaps; in no particular order.
 * I had read that Long Barn was Vita's first major garden and there she did a lot of experimentation, taking deep lessons she applied at SGC. So it could be said that Long Barn was a major inspiration for SGC - and hence they have a strong connection.
 * There seems to a strong and clear dynamic between Vita and her husband, whereby she had all the money and the creative vision and he was a broke, minor diplomat. All the money for SCG came from her, as you mention, but the power/aristo differential was always present.
 * Vita took up writing her Observer column because the couple were broke. As I have read, it was specifically this column that caught the public imagination and lead to miles of traffic jams on local roads. It might be good to give a scale of the garden's wild fame at its peak.
 * I was struck by the garden design with "vertical axes". Lol. I suspect some readers might take the phrase the wrong way, though I love the medieval idea. ⚒
 * As a rose lover I am always hearing that Vita loved Souvenir Du Dr Jamain above all roses. (I have planted them in my garden in honour of her). Apparently she 'rescued' it at SCG. It might be churlish not to mention the docteur.
 * Re the National Trust, did the couple originally plan to leave a significant 'endowment' with the house? The article suggests so. I would be surprised.
 * Lastly, the article section "Adam Nicolson" is a slightly clunky para, that contrasts with the rest of the flowing prose. Two very long sentences with various subclauses, could be smoothed out.

I hope that's of help. You have researched the house and garden much more me so I'll leave consideration of the points with you. Most of the points are ref'd in Vita's article, I think. Congratulations and best wishes Anna (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Wonderful suggestions. Replied more fully on my Talkpage. Best. KJP1 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now FA! I hope the final result is pleasing and thank you so much for your input which greatly improved the article. All the very best and take care. KJP1 (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Rossettis and Ms Rich
Hello, I saw that there was (and is) the link to Dante Gabriel but I've put a clarification mark because I wasn't sure which of the Rossettis *the source* meant. I've found no mention of any Rossetti in the work cited (Shuman, Great American Authors, p. 1278). I insist that a clarification is needed. Cheers, The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have checked the source, fair enough. Anna (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Commas
FYI: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 210 and this more recent one that sadly degenerated much further:. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 19:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Surely there is so much more useful stuff to do out there than adding random introductory commas everywhere. And more important things to do in the world than get irritated by commas. Mental note to self. Ho hum. Anna (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The only thing people seem to be able to get together on is not to give any guidance in MoS, use whatever style you want when writing or significantly editing prose, hopefully in alignment with the rest of the article, and don't edit an article just to add/remove contentious use cases like those. It seems like one is welcome to change the style as long as "paying the toll" of substantially improving the article at the same time. —[ Alan M 1 (talk) ]— 23:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Anna (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sarah Eberle
Hello Anna Roy -- Thanks for contributing this; I've patrolled it because the subject is clearly notable but it's coming over a little promotional to me, with the focus on all the awards. If you were able to expand it to explain what kinds of designs she does or notable permanent gardens that she has designed that would balance it out nicely. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand (and indeed share) your concerns about new page patrol (I'm an admin moonlighting at NPP to help with the enormous current backlog), which is why I raised them on your talk page so that you could address them at your leisure, rather than putting a tag on the page and targeting it for the deletionists. Feel free to ignore, and happy editing. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate that you have taken the time out of admining clean up to review. I have added a show listing to try and balance things out. Anna (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Anna Roy

Thank you for creating Fergus Garrett.

User:Mako001, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mako001 (C) (T)  🇺🇦 05:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Welcome to WP. I hope you will enjoy editing here. I have reverted your changes to the article. Please take individual changes to the article talk pages if you wish to discuss them. Anna (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

July thanks
Thank you for what you told Martinevans123! - I'm doing many things besides Wikipedia and have pics from vacation days to offer -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sending best wishes and thanks for your decades of work for WP. Anna (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Sylvia Plath
Happy New Year, and pleased to see you're still editing. It seems an age since Sissinghurst Castle Garden. I'm wondering if you can help me on Sylvia Plath. I'm doing some work on a Copyvio investigation, and I've a query regarding the "College years and depression" section, specially the bit below:
 * "She was furious at not being at a meeting the editor had arranged with Welsh poet Dylan Thomas — a writer whom she loved, said one of her boyfriends, "more than life itself". She hung around the White Horse Tavern and the Chelsea Hotel for two days, hoping to meet Thomas, but he was already on his way home. A few weeks later, she slashed her legs to see if she had enough "courage" to kill herself."

Do you happen to have access to the Thomas source, so that we could check whether it is close paraphrasing? I could just re-write it, but I'm reluctant to meddle with a GA, and I know you were a major contributor. And just to be clear, I'm not for one moment suggesting your own editing may be CV, this addition was made in 2012 by a different editor. Anyways, if you can help, I'd be most grateful. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC) KJP1 (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'll look into it. I don't have the books but I can root about online. The text has been there in the article a long time. The GA was slapped on as a "drive by" (as it were). The nominator did very little (if any) editing to the article before nominating and succeeding in GA, if I remember rightly. Thanks for your work. 10:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If I ever find out who this different editor was, 12 years ago, I'll certainly ask them to check... haha If you don't have a copy of Thomas (2008) Anna, I'd be happy to send you a copy of page 35! Regards and Happy New Year also. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Martin, happy new year. Yes, please do send me p35. My eyes are not great so coding and editing is hard these days. I hope all is well. (I'm staying well out of any WP politics that might be floating around.) All best wishes. Anna (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna. Hope you are well. Yes, likewise, many "political" pages no longer have a place in my watchlist. And often less "floating around", more "torpedoing"! I will try and send you an image of p.35, via your "email this user", if that suits? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Martin. Fatal Neglect is not on preview in Google Books. Anna (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It's funny - I don't even remember how to navigate so much of WP anymore. So many links native to my fingers have gone now. A strange feeling after spending so much time here, back in the day. This is what getting old feeling like. Lol. Anna (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries. I should, of course, urge everyone to buy a copy, so that David N. Thomas gets as many royalties as possible. A while back I took the liberty of contacting him to ask about the exact details of Dylan's death and who was the last person to see him alive. He very politely explained that he had long ago archived all his research materials and passed them on for safe keeping (to the University of Wales Library, I think). Ah yes... I thought I had forgotten most of my edits from the early days.... but then someone had the brilliant idea of dredging them all up again for re-examination. Oh dear. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * - Martin, stop teasing me. If you've got the source, there's no need to send it to Anna, you can check and amend if necessary! KJP1 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's always good to get a second opinion, or a third, or... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I've had another look and just adjusted the text accordingly. If you still want to see that paragraph on page 35, I guess I could just copy it here (.. or would that trigger another indef by the powers that be?) What I'd really like to show you, however, is what's on page 123 of the book, about Plath's boyfriend Gordon Lameyer and subsequent events, which is far more interesting. You might want to mention it in her article. Again it's only a short paragraph, so I could copy it here or send it to you via email. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your email, Anna. As suggested, I will raise a new topic at Talk:Sylvia Plath. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested
Hi. I know you're semi-retired, but if you have the time/inclination: You've participated in discussions on the Joan of Arc talk page, and I've begun a consensus discussion there now. Can you offer your opinion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)