User talk:Burks88

Franz Wright looks great. Glad we could fix it. Sdedeo (tips) 20:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the ill-advised deletion. I'd forgotten a central principle here: if something needs balance, add the balance...(!) Don't delete stuff. Won't happen again. Cheers. Burks88 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

BAP wives
Hey, if you want to go through the bother of citing sources that show Donald Hall and the other poets are married to these women, I've already done so in the articles for the individual volumes, so you could just cut and paste those citations into this article rather than look them up on the net. I didn't want to go through the bother unless there was a consensus on the BAP Series article to keep that paragraph, but feel free.

You put back some material into the Briggs quote. I like that material but it could face copyright violation objections. I think the phrase I added ("said Duhamel's poem was not even the best work Duhamel had published in that same issue of Salt Hill, let alone one of the best poems published in America that year") covers the same territory you did with the reinserted material (the last sentence, "But damned if the one praising David Lehman was not picked up for the big showcase" is funny but not necessary. If we can rewrite parts of Briggs' quote without losing any meaning, we shouldn't be using this much quoted material.

WaverlyR made the point on the talk page that Lehman is explicit about who his assistants are. Can we cut out the nonassistants from that long list of 34 or so individuals? I doubt anybody's going to say John Ashbery got so many poems in the series because he sent suggestions to Lehman, right? And can we state in what volumes Lehman thanked particular people? That involves some work, but it shows (a) that some assistant got thanked in X issue and then got a poem in the Y issue of the series. Please tell me what you think, either on the BAP series talk page or mine. Thanks for your work on the article, by the way. I've said where I disagree with some things you've added, but overall I think the article is improving and I appreciate your efforts. Noroton 21:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we can wait a bit on the assistants business. Let's see what Sdeleo says are his specific objections to the wives list. If he just wants proof that they're wives, then I'd be happy to do that work and save you the trouble. I guess the Mediabistro link should be OK. It's not a regular blog, but part of Jupiter Media, so as a professional site it should pass muster. I don't know why the link to "Death by Pad Thai" is in there though ... Noroton 21:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look
I've brought the BAP matter to Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Please take a look at that and feel free to comment there. I suppose I am criticizing both of you for being contentious, but please don't consider that a condemnation -- I think it's hard not to be contentious when you care about something a lot, as both of you do. And I do think you've both improved the article. At BLP they only rule on content, and especially with newer editors, if they disagree with anything you've done, you shouldn't consider it a criticism, only their application of Wikipedia rules. Noroton 20:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

keep cool
No need for you to do anything at all, although I do wish you would add exact information on those people thanked by Lehman in his acknowledgements. If it's unclear that certain people thanked were not assistants who later got their poetry published, I suggest you remove that part yourself. If you can in fact show it with footnotes pointing to the acknowledgement in a particular edition and showing (in the footnote, I assume) what exactly the relationship was with Lehman, that would be something we can defend, I think. I think we'll get some good guidance on this from WP:BLP editors. I hope you don't think you're in any trouble. Noroton 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow
Thank you for all that work. I think to add it to the article requires making it as simple and straightforward as possible. I also think we can add a lot of this to the articles on individual books, mentioning the acknowledgements of assistants and linking (to the other Wikipedia articles on individual volumes) to where their poems appeared. I can do that (unless you'd rather). Every time you used a quotation in your last message to me, you quoted words directly from the book, correct? I assume the capitalization was not actually as in the book but the words were, correct?

I'm still digesting this. I'll look at it more and suggest a way to include it in the article that should meet objections over original research. Basically it's a matter of making it as simple and straightforward as possible while not hitting the reader with too much data and as little irrelevant data as possible. The way I'm thinking now, we don't need to mention (in the series article) all those thanked and compare that with those who were thanked and who later had their poems appear -- we could just say something like: "These ### assistants and others who were thanked by Lehman in the acknowledgements sections of the series also had poems published in the series:" Then list in order by years, with each item (name) followed by the years in which their poems later appeared. It could look something like:


 * 1996: "assistant": Maggie Nelson (author of poem in the 2002 edition)


 * 2003: provided "invaluable assistance": Mark Bibbins (poem in 2004 edition); "ideas or suggestions from": Angela Ball (01), Shanna Compton (05), Stacey Harwood (05), Danielle Pafunda (04, 06, 07), Carly Sachs (04), Susan Wheeler (88, 91, 93, 96, 98, Best of Best, 03, 05)


 * 2004: provided "invaluable assistance": Mark Bibbins (poem in 2004 edition); "made useful suggestions": Angela Ball (01), Shanna Compton (05), Stacey Harwood (05), Danielle Pafunda (04, 06, 07), Susan Wheeler (88, 91, 93, 96, 98, BoB^, 03, 05)

These are all just my preliminary thoughts. I wouldn't even mention the people who were thanked but didn't get their poems published. As I think about it, that's beside the main point, which is to say that a number did get their poems published. Now, a bunch of people would be referred to repeatedly in item after item, but I don't think that should matter. Alternately, we could list by person, but then we'd have two sets of data for each person: volumes where thanked and volumes with poems, and I think breaking up items with names and numbers is probably easier on the eye. What do you think? Again, that's a great job you've done and a great amount of work. Thanks.Noroton 01:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Burks:

You posted the following: "And on those who have only ever edited one article--let alone making a complaint on that article (with zero proof) which could be made against any one of thousands of artists' articles on WP. Associates of a subject often start WP articles. That's why we have AfD, WP:NOTABILITY, multiple editors for each article, and WP:NPV/WP:NOR--which require independent sourcing for all information. The gall someone has to have to come on WP and start making demands without having read any of the guidelines for WP is amazing. This man is a vandal unless he can comply--even once--with any of the WP provisions above-referenced. And if he doesn't or can't, the tag must be/will be removed by someone"

I presume you KNOW I never edited an article, yes? If not then I'd say you are dangerously speculating. I presume you never read or couldn't comprehend what I wrote or what the intent was since NO PROOF was necessary. It seems to me that your comments are far off base and your angry demeanor does nothing for the needs of wikapedia. However I have left a plethora of policies from wikapedia that I believe this Abrhamson entry violates. Maybe you should read them before you write another angry wrong-headed rude post. Thank you.John Gardner (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Community enforceable mediation/WaverlyR and Burks88
The case is open. I hope things work out. Durova Charge! 18:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Talkback
Mr.TrustWorthyTalk to Me! 23:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Greatlakesavengers.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Greatlakesavengers.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:SethAbramson.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:SethAbramson.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Jack Shaftoe
Great page, that is a really good way to write about fiction. I did considerable work to get Quicksilver (novel) up to GA standards and wanted to push it for FA stuff. Since you have some expertise in this area, would you review Quicksilver (novel). I also began work on The Baroque Cycle and The Confusion both of which need considerable work. Your help would be greatly appreciated, Sadads (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Enoch Root really needs some improvement and was pretty close to deletion discussion at one point. Sadads (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Nice work on Seth Abramson. Meow!

Drmies (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC) 

Hello, I'm Esmeme. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from Seth Abramson. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Preceding undated comment added 07:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)