User talk:Fountains-of-Paris

Your edits at Phaedrus
Hi Fountains-of-Paris,

In rejecting my repeated reversal of your edits on Plato's Phaedrus, you wrote:


 * Your comment on Phaedrus was: "Madness, divine madness, and divine inspiration are all different. Your personal preference is not Wikipedia acceptable."


 * This is not my personal preference, but the wording currently used in the Themes section of the article in its current form at Phaedrus, which you may not have seen. The wording in the section you keep reverting is not consistent with the wording used in the Themes section which was written by a separate editor wnad which I am quoting here. Correct it with your own words if you like but the current version of the article is inconsistent between the wording used in these separate sections. Here is the Themes section version as written by the previous editor in the current version of the article:


 * "In the Phaedrus, Socrates makes the rather bold claim that some of life's greatest blessings flow from madness; and he clarifies this later by noting that he is referring specifically to madness inspired by the gods. It should be noted that Phaedrus is Plato's only dialogue that shows Socrates outside the city of Athens, out in the country. It was believed that spirits and nymphs inhabited the country, and Socrates specifically points this out after the long palinode with his comment about listening to the cicadas. After originally remarking that "landscapes and trees have nothing to teach me, only people do", Socrates goes on to make constant remarks concerning the presence and action of the gods in general, nature gods such as Pan and the nymphs, and the Muses, in addition to the unusually explicit characterization of his own daemon. The importance of divine inspiration is demonstrated in its connection with and the importance of religion, poetry and art, and above all else, love. Eros, much like in the Symposium, is contrasted from mere desire of the pleasurable and given a higher, heavenly function. Unlike in the Ion, a dialogue dealing with madness and divine inspiration in poetry and literary criticism, madness here must go firmly hand in hand with reason, learning, and self-control in both love and art. This rather bold claim has puzzled readers and scholars of Plato's work for centuries because it clearly shows that Socrates saw genuine value in the irrational elements of human life, despite many other dialogues that show him arguing that one should pursue beauty and that wisdom is the most beautiful thing of all."


 * That is the Themes section which is inconsistent with the section which you keep reverting. The section title used by the previous editor is explicit. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Since I believe that many of Wikipedia's philosophy related articles need improvement, I don't take reversing other editors' contributions lightly. There have to be multiple reasons, but mainly whether the contribution vandalizes the article, makes the article philosophically at odds with accepted professionally published sources, or less readable for casual visitors.

While I am delighted to encounter another person who takes as much pleasure from Plato's works as I do, I'm forced to oppose your edits on all of the above grounds. Of course, if you can find a peer reviewed professional article to support your addition, just as you have stated, then I will back off without further conditions. That cannot be your previous reference to Cooper's Introduction to the Phaedrus which is open in front of me. He says nothing about madness, (Phaedrus 244a ff).

Naturally, these are all based on my personal judgment. However, according to Wikipedia rules for resolving editing conflicts between editors {WP:DR}, you may not insist on changing the article over the other editor's objections, as you are doing. You need to have a consensus of other interested editors first. You don't have that.

Also, please have a look at {WP:NOR} "No original research" for guidelines.

BlueMist (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * After some work in the net, I have changed my position to "support". I think there are not many questions as clear as this one.--Auró (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, your two citations are excellent and they are very reliable sources which should be added at Phaedrus. I am in agreement here and if you can add your references to the edit in your preferred format on the Talk page at Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue) then I will try to support you on adding your two references directly into the text. Good research! Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I have expanded three references in Talk:Phaedrus (dialogue).--Auró (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, are you there? Marlindale (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Alejandro González Iñárritu
There is no mention of his nickname anywhere in the article. There wasn't any before I added it and there is none after your edits. Gdzlg (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia policy on WP:Lede is plain that only material that is already in the body of the article can be summarized in the Lede section. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Johann Sebastian Bach. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. You have been disruptively editing Johann Sebastian Bach and Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach against policy, guidelines, and best practices for nearly four months now. Consider this your final warning. Softlavender (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jane Austen
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jane Austen you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jane Austen
The article Jane Austen you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Jane Austen for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Close disputed
I note that the close of the contentious RfC for English Democrats is disputed and ask that you unclose the RfC so than an administrator weighing the policy requirements may examine it. Collect (talk) 22:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Bosch numbers
Thanks for your note. I have not seen the Fischer book but only the online blurb for it that states that "Today only 20 paintings and eight drawings are confidently assigned to Bosch’s oeuvre". Therefore I am not able to assess whether those twenty include any that are disputed by other 21st century scholars. The numbers keep changing, and confidence is relative; maybe "confidently" is the word that's creating difficulty in our article's lede. See here for an example of some recent controversy. The last paragraph describes Matthijs Ilsink, coordinator of the Bosch Research and Conservation Project, as acknowledging "that attributions are always a matter of discussion and debate" and quotes him as saying, "Matters of attribution and the whole picture of what is and what is not by an artist are all relative”. The reason I prefer the less precise "about 25" language is that in this case a little vagueness may be better, and in any case "about 25" is the formulation that shows up again and again in reliable sources. Examples:, , , , , , and this one where the number is 24. I have no particular expertise on Bosch; possibly this matter is worth moving to the article's talk page to see what the consensus is. Ewulp (talk) 03:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Very fine research . If you have strong feeling about the number 25 then the strongest reference source is: by Gerd Unverfehrt (1980) attributed only 25 paintings and 14 drawings to him.


 * It seems like the Bosch article might look more strongly cited as a documented range "between 20 and 25 paintings depending on the current state of scholarly debate," and to give the citations for the 20-number (Fischer's number) and for the 25-number (Unverfehrt's number). This avoids the issue of fudge factor being used in the Bosch article and you get to state your preference for the 25-number with citation. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The Unverfehrt number is already cited in the "Debates on attribution" section, and the Fischer number could go there too (I can't add it as I haven't seen the book and do not favor using a blurb as a source). The language in the lede seems fine and is supported by many reliable sources; I've added a citation there for good measure. Ewulp (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Now a completely different question. After looking at the Bosch page I noticed that it is at a "C"-class level which seems unexpected for someone of the stature of Bosch. Do you have any thoughts of how the article might be improved to a "B"-class article. Bosch deserves something better it seems. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It would take the usual effort & research to supply details of biography, patrons, sources of his iconography, description of style and technique, and the rest. It has to be said that Bosch is not anomalous among major artists in having a "C"-class article—see Giotto, Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Hans Memling, Albrecht Dürer, Paolo Veronese, Peter Paul Rubens, Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin, Pablo Picasso, many others. And some are worse off still (e.g., Matthias Grünewald, Tintoretto, George Stubbs, Pierre Bonnard, Willem de Kooning). Ewulp (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point . In the case of Bosch, the current article seems to organize his Life as one large section with no distinctions within his substantial career. My own thought is that the article might look better in its organization if it were organized by his three major period, the early period, the middle period, and the late period. This would also provide a basis for the better organization of the paintings he made, which presently are not organized in any apparent way. What do think should be the next priority for improving the Bosch article? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My approach would be to do a lot of research, take notes, and then flesh out the article in whatever way seems appropriate. For instance an article on Vermeer will discuss his technical procedures at great length because they have been the subject of so much wonder and speculation; this is not so much the case with Paulus Potter. An article about a seminal artist like Peter Paul Rubens is more in need of a sizeable Influence and Legacy section than is an article about Jean-Baptiste Pater. Ewulp (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your answer is well thought out and the comparison of Bosch to other artists is of importance for the Northern European Renaissance. My first thoughts were to think that the "gallery" for Bosch would be better represented as organized between his middle period and his late period. The intensity of composition and subject matter is marked in its difference between those two periods. What do you think of going in that direction of discriminating the three periods (early middle late) in Bosch's life as a first step to improvement there. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Ewulp (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jane Austen
The article Jane Austen you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jane Austen for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Jane Austen at FAC
Hi there- the nomination has now been archived, meaning that there's no way for it to continue; you are free to renominate, but you cannot do so for at least two weeks after the archive date unless one of the FA delegates gives you permission (I appreciate that this is frustrating; it's one of the methods used to keep the backlog down). I advise taking the article to peer review before renominating- I'd be willing to take a look through if I can find some time, Tim might be prepared to have another look, other PR/FAC regulars might also drop by. There's also WikiProject Women Writers and associated projects which may well have a number of members prepared to take a look- important topics like this can often motivate people if they are advertised. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting back. Tim is away on Wikibreak for several months and if you can do a read through when time allows at some point this would be appreciated. I put the new section on "Novels" together based largely on your concurrence opinion stated at the top of the FA nomination and thought it would be nice if possible to hear your opinion when time allows. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm pretty impressed that you were able to rustle-up 2.5k words so quickly. I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Austen, so I couldn't say whether there are particular issues which you've overlooked (a significant feminist critique, a persistent alternative reading of a particular novel, etc.) but taking a look through the new sections, you may want to think breaking up the text with some images (have we got any PD illustrations of the novels? We'll certainly have covers/title pages/frontispieces...) and maybe splitting some of the longer paragraphs. I'll leave a few more comments on the Austen talk page for you and make a few small edits; again, I recommend peer review. Given the importance of the topic, I think you'd attract reviewers, and I can think of a few people I could ask to take a look, if you like. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Reception history of Jane Austen into Jane Austen. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

REPLY
Sorry for replying your request. But I can not tell the description of The Revenant's accolades, because I'm afraid the other editors blocking my Wikipedia's account again. I'm sorry.

IreneTandry (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Reger's Requiem
Thank you for copy-editing! Minor questions (sorry for going backwards):
 * Isn't a pedal point always sustained, by definion?
 * "simple melody" is not enough, it really is similar to a typical chorale melody, - how to say that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Sieh, sie umschweben dich" means literally "Look, they hover around you" - about the opposite of spiritual ascent: imagined still around the addressee of the plea not to forgot them. "Spiritual" seems a strange word in this dark context ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "In the conclusion, the soloist repeats the earlier phrase," - misses that again the soloist begins, while the choir answers. The phrase is not exactly the same, as explained just afterwards. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "descending tones" - each tone doesn't descend, - will that be understood? (English isn't my first language, - perhaps this is a silly question, let me know.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

General comments first
That is a nice article you have placed for Reger which appears to follow some of the popular Encyclopedia articles available for it on the internet. My small edits were indications of places which might help the narrative flow of your article in the second half of the article. You can change back or modify as needed. The two top issues I would identify are (1) Would the article be easier to read in English if the English translations were the primary source used throughout the article from start to finish, and without the German text in the main article. If needed the German original could be moved to the footnotes as part of the critical apparatus, though they possibly should not be used in the primary text of the English language version of Wikipedia (I would say the exact opposite for the German version of Wikipedia). It is your decision if you prefer an article which is more accessible to read in English, or if you would like to retain the critical apparatus in German as your preference. The second point is (2) Should the article give more attetion to including the full translation into English of the original German poem. The poet's writings have been studied in English, though I have not seen a full English translation of this poem which you may or may not have seen in the liner notes of the CD or elsewhere. It may be worth including it fully translated and possibly in 2 column format for English readers. Once you decide if points (1) and (2) and useful, then I can answer your list of questions above. It appears that you may have the full score of the composition in your hands so you have quite an advantage over other editors looking at the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for looking and improving. I come from Bach and think the language feeling of the German original should come first, then the translation. (I also come from Kafka, where we decided to have German titles first, then translation.) I confess to be no friend of footnotes ;) - There are translations in the sources, but none of them is good (enough to be exclusively in the article), on top of copyright problems (compare Ständchen, see the DYK nomination). One translation is on the Hyperion recording (a bit hidden: go to track 12, then click on the first "English"), the other in the FitzGibbons paper, Appendix, p 21 (of the pdf). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to mention the obvious since your English is so good, that you might give consideration to deriving or making your own English translation of the poem for use at Wikipedia. I can offer to proof the translated poem if you like, though your English translations are usually useful and accurate. The article would be more interesting to English readers if the verses could be read in English translation perhaps in a closing section of the article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the flowers ;) - I did such a thing for Gerechtigkeitsspirale, but this would be hard, very hard. As mused elsewhere (forgot where, perhaps in the FAC): "nur Kampf um erneutes Sein" - English doesn't have these short words meaning a lot, as "Kampf" (fight, battle) and "Sein" (Being, existence). If a translation, it should be in the poem section because it's the base for two of the three works. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that it is worthy of an attempt for you to translate the poem given the patience you have already put into the article. If you would like to try a first draft of the translated poem here then that is ok and I can then try to make sure that prosody issues are observed. Your idea to then place it in the poem section makes good sense also. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I put some work and love into the article, but just today felt I should have written 30 stubs on his other compositions instead. Later perhaps. No time today, need to complete BWV 194 for GA, last in my annual cycle, then vacation starting tomorrow. I may think about it while driving ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A challenge: "Und genießen zum letzten Mal ihr verglimmendes Leben." - "And enjoy for the last time their dimming life."
 * There's no reflection, - the dead don't reflect, nor is light reflected. "verglimmen" is what a candle does when ending to burn, what's that in English? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Both your work and love are evident. Here are some more edits for the first half of your article (placed in the article), and again reverse/modify/change them as needed. Perhaps they can offer a small encouragement for your possible attempt to translate the poem. Also the last glimmer of a candle is often called the 'final flicker'. Good travels for your trip. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I put now the poem both in the article and the talk, for a collaborate translation first on the talk. - "Last flicker" doesn't work, sorry, because life is the noun, not flicker. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A collaborative translation might be useful. The short phrase you refer to might be translated as "In their all but fully extinguished life." Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments. I try again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Sonia Sotomayor
Hi, I removed your FAC nomination of Sonia Sotomayor as out-of-process. Per the FAC instructions, if you are not one of the significant contributors to the article, you should consult and work with the editors who brought it to its current state before nomination. I don't see where you have done that. Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
For your very positive encouragements and activities regarding edits to Revenant (which, I acknowledge, is outside my scope of expertise). I will look in again there, but trust the editors committed to the quality of that article to make constructive changes in line with WP:VERIFY (and any other issue raised). With regard, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * And now that I know of your general interests, I will seek to engage you if I come across articles in those areas. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is currently nominated for GA by Captain though its not clear what direction is being set for this nom. I have asked User:SNUGGUMS what direction is discernible for the article though it was not clear which direction the article is headed. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Founatains, thank so much for your kind words and encouragement. I had not really considered doing a major job on Mansfield Park, but now you have mentioned it, I'll will. Please have a wonderful day and cheers! --A.S. Brown (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some possible leading Mansfield Park articles of possible interest: "Feminist Irony" by Margaret Kirkham, "Feeling as one Ought about Fanny Price" by Nina Auerbach, "Structure and Social Vision" by David Monaghan, "The Promise of 'Mansfield Park'" by Susan Morgan, "Love: Surface and Subsurface" by Juliet McMaster, "Propriety and Lovers' Vows" by Stuart Tave, "The Improvement of the Estate" by Alistair Duckworth, and "The Difficulty Beauty of Mansfield Park" by Thomas Edwards. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank so much! I'll take a good look at those articles next week. Please have a wonderful day!--A.S. Brown (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It was good to hear that you might be able to get those essays and it will be interesting to hear your thoughts or see your edits from them. I think your comments on Edward Said are on target as to the pro and contra response to his essay about Mansfield Park. It might be a good thought to start to consider the re-organization of that section within the article to separate the comments into two subsections, one for the pro comments and the other subsection for the contra comments since Said did succeed in drawing both opinions about his viewpoint. It is worth my mentioning that if you have the Norton Critical edition for Mansfield Park, or if you can get it at a local library, that there are a number of hard to find and interesting essays which were added after the end of it about the novel itself which you might like. If you have any trouble finding the other essays I mentioned on Mansfield Park then let me know and I'll give it another try. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Foundations, thank so again for your kind words and thoughtful advice. I'm start on Wednesday when I have a day off from work. That's good suggestion for reorganizing. I don't entirely agree with Said says. For an example, his claim which is echoed on the orientalism article that such stereotypes were created to justify French and British expansion at the expense of the Ottoman empire is woefully wrong. That really shows a bad understanding of 19th century and of the "Eastern Question". In fact, the British supported the Ottomans against Russia all through the 19th century, which whatever else it says about Britain and the "Eastern Question", does not suggest there is the sort of pervasive anti-Muslim prejudice of the sort Said claims existed. If Said was right about that, then Britain would never had fought the Crimean War in defense of the Ottomans against Russia. Likewise, Said only talks about orientalists from Britain, France and the US and he ignores the fact that so many of the orientalists were German and Hungarian because Germany and Hungary did not invade Muslim nations, which is hard is difficult with his claim that orientalism was invented to justify imperial expansion. If had he had just claimed that orientalism was invented to maintain a sense of Western superiority, he would had been on firmer ground. But own feelings do not belong in the article, and I try to be fair, so I should probably take out Imperialism and Culture. For the sake of fairness, it might be better to cite Said's book rather summarizing his thesis on the basis of the writing of his critics, which is what I have done. I must admit that I was probably not entirely fair there. I think my sister has a copy of the Norton edition of Mansfield Park, so I'll ask her if she would be willing to mail to me (through she lives in England, so I might better buying my mine own copy). Thank you for your advice and help, much appreciated! --A.S. Brown (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That all sounds like a good approach. The background you mention about the actual history is also useful if it could somehow be nicely drafted with a citation or two added in. There remain many commentators on Said who agree with him that slavery caused suffering though they wonder how much of his argument can be carried over responsibly to Austen and attributed to her. I will plan to look in after a couple days (you mention after Wednesday) to see how your interesting comments are coming together and to see if the two sections approach (pro-and-contra Said) is useful. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank so much for all your kind words, help and encouragement. Much appreciated! I've still have much work to do, but I hope made a good start. Thank you for so helpful and friendly! Cheers! (from A.S. Brown, 8-15-2016)
 * That was really a useful edit on your part. If or when you have a chance to look at the Norton Critical edition of Mansfield Park, then it would be nice to hear if any of the collected essays appended at the end of that book catch your eye as interesting. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for copyediting and good questions! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1434 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

... and three! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Categories for Law's Empire
I am not sure if the categories for the article Law's Empire are fitting. They rather categorize the author Ronald Dworkin, so they are rather categories for persons, not for works/books as they should be. Compare e.g. the categories for another work by Dworkin, Taking Rights Seriously. --Proofreader (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you feel strongly about these links, then they could be made consistent with Dworkin's other book. Some of the author link are helpful it seems and perhaps some of them ought to be retained. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Fountations, thank you so much for your kind words, which are much appreciated here. The slavery issue also strikes me as very important. This has nothing to do with Austen, but I just finished off watching a documentary on the slave trade. It didn't tell anything that I did not really know, but it did bring home the full horror of the "Middle Passage", as the fact was graphically illustrated that so people died on the slave ships that vast packs of sharks followed the slave ships all the way across the Atlantic to fest on the bodies that got dumped overboard daily. Patrica Rozma is not a historian and her film version of Mansfield Park is really off-base in that she has slave ships operating in the English Channel ca. 1800, which would not had happened for reasons I mentioned in the article, but I do share her outrage at slavery, which was and is such a repulsive and dehumanizing institution (sadly, slavery still exists in parts of the world even today). Rozma's heart is in the right place, she didn't know her history very well. I follow Windshuttle (who is a not Austen scholar, but is a man who does not approve of Said) in that Austen made Sir Thomas a planation owner as a convenient way to get him out of England for a long period of time, not as some sort of attempt to justify slavery. One wishes that Austen had picked another plot device to get Sir Thomas out of England, but that is the one she chose. I am not completely against Said in the sense that his charge of "Orientalism", namely that Westerners liked to depict Islamic civilisations as strange, exotic and timeless does have merit. The point of timelessness is really a way of dismissing Islamic countries and of asserting Western superiority since it is a way of saying the Western nations change and advance while Islamic nations do not. Having said that much, Said really goes too far with his thesis that pretty much everything in the West is rotten. Yes, there are many things like slavery which people should be ashamed of, but there are things to be proud of as well. I stand midway between people like Windshutle, Victor Davis Hanson and Kenneth Clarke for whom the "West is the Best" and people like Said, Frantz Fanon and Vladimir Putin for whom the "West is the worst". It is a really a matter of perspective. For example, the same Britain that produced slavery and the slave trade also produced Austen, Wilberforce and abolitionism, so there are things at one and same time both to loathe and love. Getting back to Mansfield Park, there are number of philosophical points that needed to be addressed as you noted, and I will make that my project for late summer and early fall. I am not ashamed of my sex, but most of the editors here are male, so means that Wikipedia definitely has a build-in andro-centric bias, in that articles on men and what are perceived as male themes tended to much more detailed than articles on women and what are perceived as female themes. For an example, I mentioned in the article on the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-05 that the Russian soldiers often raped Chinese women in Manchuria, which was something that article totally ignored. I put that in the main section of the article because I feel that is not a peripheral matter. It is my belief that the experience of women in war is just as important as the experience of men in war. What is interesting is that somebody else moved to the section dealing with peripheral matters, which reveals much about what is considered important and unimportant in the war. The center of the article deals with the various battles and campaigns on land and sea, and violence against women is a peripheral matter compared to what is seen as the really important stuff. There is so much of that around here. Because of Austen's sex and her novels feature heroines as the protagonists rather than heroes, she is seen around here as a female theme. Personally, I do not agree with that, but that is how things work around here. Articles dealing with female themes tend to suffer from a certain neglect. Some writing on Austen might be good for the spirit, so I should get back to that article. I would love to read those articles you mentioned and if you could email them to me, I would much appreciate it. Thank you again for your kind words and help. Please have a wonderful day! --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice comment with my answer in the Mansfield section above. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (film)
I've reverted your addition as it conflicted with the guidelines for film plot summary word counts established at WP:FILMPLOT. You're welcome to restructure the summary to avoid this conflict, or initiate a discussion at the article's Talk page regarding whether it would be appropriate to waive this guideline. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This may be an issue since the source of the material is the director himself. The citation and reference have already been added to the Production section and to the Lead. You can put a template in the section for marking to need to abridge the Plot section. The material added should be retained since it is from the director of the film himself. Let me know if you would like me to condense some other paragraph in the Plot section which might be too lengthy. I shall try another rewrite to condense the closing paragraph to accommodate the material which the director of the film states as being essential in his 2014 Guardian interview as cited. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

strongly disagree with convert from MLA

 * strongly disagree with convert from MLA. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Answer on your Talk page with link to WP:Forumshop and Village Pump policy option. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Jane Austen Family Tree (Pedigree Format)
Apparently a 30-day proposal process is required for posts related to Jane Austen on Jane Austen's talk page? I am not sure what all your abbreviations mean. In order to move my work over to the talk page so that the process of review can occur I will need to undo your reversion. I will then copy and paste it to the talk page and then I will try to revert it back. Hopefully that's OK with you. It represents many hours of research and I think it adds value to see four generations rather than just two.Ekvcpa (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice of you to make that comment. Improvements and enhancements to the article are an important contribution for the edits you are proposing. If possible, I would suggest that it might be a good idea to hold on to your new tree until the current RfC (request for comments) is allowed to run its full course which may take up to 30-days. After that any enhancements and improvements you have could receive the full attention they deserve from interested editors. Possibly you can continue to refine it during the next 30 days to make it even better by then. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comment. Fortunately, I was able to access my work without having to undo your change. I have posted it on the talk page so that the editors do not lose notice of it. I will continue working to obtain alternate sources for the family links/associations listed on the pedigree.Ekvcpa (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Query
What were you trying to do here? --John (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I plan to follow Floquenbeam's comment. If the editor does not want to list her FA articles from Wikipedia then she does not have to; Sarah did list her FA articles on her User page which were nice to see. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that. --John (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I have no concerns with you asking to see previous FA's that VE has worked on. You may or may not get a reply (it seems like every other discussion on WP, this one is contentious), but there's nothing wrong with asking once. But based on "If Victoria is a professor at some college please let me know" and "If you know where I can read one of her published articles", I interpret this as a request for links to actual journal articles, and information about her real life. Upon re-reading, that's still the most obvious interpretation, I think.  That's what I was concerned and commenting about. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * @Fountains-of-Paris: It's probably redundant, but I would like to add a little explanation. Changes to articles are supposed to be based on policy, not on the reputation of the person making the change. It is sometimes interesting to know a little about another editor's background, but that background has no relevance for what happens at Wikipedia. That is because everything has to be verifiable and arguments from authority are ignored. A more important issue is that there is a very strong policy against WP:OUTING which means that there must be absolutely no conjecture about what another editor does off-wiki. If someone posts personal information on their user page, it's obviously fine to read what they say. However, editors must never use Wikipedia to enquire about further details because that can be very intimidating regardless of the good intentions of the enquirer. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * With thanks to both editors for taking the time here. I just noticed before coming to my Talk page here that another editor, Johnb, has placed a link on the Austen Talk page for the exact thing that I was trying to obtain here: List_of_Wikipedians_by_featured_article_nominations. I now have one dozen to two dozen articles by her which I can read. With thanks. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Fountains-of-Paris, I apologize for being rude and for over-reacting. Right after making edits to Jane Austen one night early this week, which I meant to post an explanation of, there was a family emergency necessitating someone's hospitalization. Because of the family emergency I was called away from Wikipedia, did not sign on for a number of days, and when in a small moment of idleness I did sign on, this edit of yours was visible at the very top of my watchlist. For reasons that are absolutely unrelated to Jane Austen, I have learned to guard my privacy (particularly because I don't edit with a pseudonym), and knowing I that I was under a certain amount of pressure outside of Wikipedia that would keep me away for an unspecified amount of time, I overreacted. I apologize for the overreaction. Certainly if you have any questions regarding my wiki-career I'd be more than happy to answer, within my capacity, on my own user page. Thanks, and again, sorry. Victoria (tk) 22:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you reverted my previous post which you have the right to do, of course. I just wanted to make clear that in that post I was simply referring to the tone here, some of which I have struck. The comment above is neither a retraction as you suggest, (I'm not sure what I would have been retracting) nor meant as anything else. Thank you. Victoria (tk) 19:31, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your previous edit was accepted as a sign that you wanted to return to a degree of more civility in the various discussions taking place. In return I had posted some further Austen references for you and Sarah and anyone else you invite to your editing. Anyone can propose edits to improve the Austen article now and in the future, and I sent more Austen references to you when you sent your previous note to my Talk page. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was intended in that spirit. But after being gone for a few days, I return to find that someone else is now not considered worthy and that's a problem. Thank you for mentioning the Cambridge Companions (I had made a mistake about those earlier, having read somewhere (on the talk or in the article history) about the Chelsea House editions and so misread). Typically we don't use the Cambridge Companions for the individual works on the biography which has to cover the author's entire canon. When I return from the break that keeps being interrupted, I will post a reading list. These are not preferred references but rather the most recent scholarship to do with the missing sections. Victoria (tk) 20:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

In the event it is needed
I collected three sources that need to be added to the Bibliography (the monographs and essays section as now organized) in the Jane Austen article. They support the Twain, Scott and See Southam Janeites and Anti-Janeites short cites visible in the reference list that have no long reference in the Bibliography. RexxC added a source to the Bibliography with no furor being raised, but I am not sure I could do that. I did fill in a bare URL reference, author is Linda Robinson Walker added in 2010, in the last hour or two. It is an article in a journal of the Jane Austen Society of North America, so it is likely that will need to be moved to the Bibliography and the short cite altered to match the style of the rest of the article. For now, the filled out reference (long reference) is directly in the article. I should have caught that one earlier. Anyway, the three long references not now in the article in any form are in my Sandbox User:Prairieplant/sandbox for anyone to find. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Those were nice edits and I had a short unrelated question from a month ago. Did you ever have a chance to get that inter-library copy of the Norton Critical edition of Persuasion? If you could get a copy of it then it looks like the refs in that article could be made "consistent" in cite format concerns since you have now become an expert at doing that. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no I have not been out to the library to request that edition yet. I did do some work on references in Sense and Sensibility, and looked over some of the articles about the other novels. Regarding the Critical editions section in the Jane Austen article, I did notice there are (at least) three critical versions of Jane Austen's novels, yet only one of those is mentioned in the Jane Austen article. Harvard, Cambridge and Norton I have found so far in looking up books for this long dispute. I added a comment in that section with a list of the Cambridge novels. I did not look up Norton for all those details. Is there some reason to mention only one set, and then list that set as if it were the only such seties? All three were published at about the same time (this century) and all three seem to be from reputable publishers with reputable editors adding to their editions. I hope to get myself moving at a faster pace re getting to the library for the Persuasion article (posted by Prairieplant 30 August 2016)
 * The most recent version of the complete works is from Harvard which is also the most extensively annotated and the only one I have seen with ample color illustrations from the period. Its final volume on Mansfield Park is due to come out in October. The Norton critical edition you mention is somewhat distinct in that it includes multiple hard to find essays about each of the individual novels included as the second half of the printed book. It would be interesting for me to hear if your own viewpoints match up with any of those hard to find critical essays included at the end of each of the Norton Critical edition volumes if you're able to find at least one of them. Separately, RexxS said that there are 75 updates citations which he coded into his last self-revert on the Austen main page which you might bring back in if you and Ling can handshake on your Talk page or his Talk page. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * What RexxS did, he undid, after saving the Permalink showing MLA on the finished page. Prior to doing that proof of concept demonstration, RexxS made several corrections to citations and those corrections remain. You can see the slight bit of editor's codes that he used for that amazing transformation by looking at the Jane Austen View history of edits page, search for proof-of-concept, look at that edit and the one before it to see what RexxS did. I never knew anything about the mode= parameter! RexxS really knows a lot about Wikipedia tools of the trade. If this article proceeds without factions, I think RexxS must be asked to return to it, as there a few red errors that show on the page, and I have no clue how to resolve those, but I suspect RexxS does have a clue, once a positive response is given. As to the Critical editions, best illustrations makes it best? I saw the Cambridge set on the publisher's page and probably Amazon or the WorldCat pages but perhaps you have seen them both in person. I think they all three should should be mentioned, unless some as-yet-unmentioned authority says the Harvard set is the best and the rest lie on the shelf somewhere unseen. Well, you have been in enough debates this month, these are small potatoes that I mention as to Critical editions. I will follow up on my promise re Persuasion, though not so quickly as I would like. Following the long discussion on Jane Austen is a true eye-opener to me. I have not encountered so many twists & turns and misunderstandings and work to resolve differences along with will-not-read-all-these-posts-but-here-is-my-view-anyway, before. Eye-opener and a bit exhausting. --Prairieplant (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

procedural/threading question
Hey I've lost track of the massive verbiage at Jane Austen. At one point you wrote: " Positive reviews of the current article were made by Bishonen...". This appears directly below something I added that could be summarized as "NPA, please". My comments and yours seem unrelated. Did I stick my comment in the incorrect place, or were you addressing me, or (insert other possibility here)..? Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like both you and Rex were very close to a working solution on the Talk page at Austen. If you need for me to look at an old edit then just leave me the link and I can gladly look at it. I have just noticed now that Prairieplant has stated that he feels that your conversation with Rexx was 95% done. If you and Rexx were "95%" done then it might be possible for you to now handshake with Prairie on his Talk page to see if you could now green light Prairie to complete the last 5%. This would be a benefit to readers of the article and it would seem that it could restore a more mild temperature to the Talk page at Austen if you think it might be possible. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Austen
FoP, I've reversed your hatting of the IP's comment. It's inappropriate to hide someone's criticism of you, even more so if you go on to respond to it. The IP has made clear at each point that they're the same person, so their editing logged out is not a problem. SarahSV (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * FoP, stop focusing on who people are, whether they have accounts, what their backgrounds are, and which FAs they've written. You should also stop repeatedly mentioning other people as if they support what you've done. None of the editors you mention knew that you had simply copy-pasted from other articles. And the copy editors from the GOCE simply make the best of whatever text they find; they don't dig deeper.


 * Please try to use this as a learning experience. That involves listening to others. It's harder than it looks to write a featured article, and it will be difficult to write Jane Austen well because of the huge scholarly literature. Unless the writers are already familiar with the sources, it will involve a great deal of work over many months. Even the most experienced FA writer would find it challenging. SarahSV (talk) 16:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * IP should stop repeating the same questions over and over again on the Austen Talk page. I am in agreement with RexxS, Prairieplant and others on the Austen Talk page about this. Answered on Austen Talk page also. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You have a habit of not answering questions or addressing points, which is why people repeat them. It would help if you would really start listening to people. That will help you to learn about Wikipedia, and it will make things less frustrating for the people you're interacting with. SarahSV (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It is difficult to be more forthcoming than providing you with the names of the four experienced editors who can answer all of your questions about the Austen article and its development. You must know each one of them by the user names and you have not contacted any one of them concerning this matter. In the meantime, I have read your FA articles now and there is an issue with the topic of your presentation of yourself as a "star" editor at Wikipedia. After reading your articles they appear to be written in a competent journalistic tone though not really much more than that, and possibly you have completed an undergraduate degree at some college of which I do not wish to inquire about at all. I say this because the late Wadewitz wrote with a much more refined hand and she wrote at a post-graduate level of literary expertise substantially more refined than your own otherwise somewhat competent journalistic style of writing as I see it. The usual litmus test to see if someone has post-graduate skills at Austen scholarship is to ask if they have read Fielding and Richardson, which are essential to responsible Austen scholarship, and I am fairly certain of the answer. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your expert appraisal, but you're doing again precisely what you've been asked not to do, namely delving into other people's lives and articles. I'm very familiar with the work of the editors you keep citing in your defence, and there's no indication that any of them support what you did, or even know about it. And it wouldn't really matter if a thousand people supported you. The fact is that you copy-pasted from other articles, and in one case from the wrong article, so Austen now contains an unchecked novels section and two reception sections. The best response from you would have been: "I'm so sorry, I made a mistake," and we'd have said: "No worries. Well done for trying." Instead, you've dug yourself in, so now we have a mess.


 * What is needed from you now is that you start listening to the experienced editors on the talk page, including the IP editor. Then you can be part of the solution as we move forward. SarahSV (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You may contact those experienced editors since I have already communicated with them. I was originally drawn to make my edits on Austen months ago when I discovered that the remarkable editing by the late Wadewitz in improving the Austen article was apparently left unattended for several years and no-one was enhancing the article toward peer review. Dianne and I then set up a memorial for the late Wadewitz last April on Dianne's Talk page several months ago if anyone would like to visit it here . Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

We never make allegations like the one above directed at Sarah, or this on the talk page. Pinging again, ,. Or anyone else. I must go offline right now for personal reasons. Victoria (tk) 20:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Correcting the ping for . --Mirokado (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Fountains-of-Paris, edits like this one are not permitted. We do not discuss other editors unless their behaviour makes it necessary. You should accept that others may disagree with you, and that this is a crowd-sourced encyclopedia which, famously, "anyone can edit". If you continue to go around asking for credentials and casting aspersions, it is likely that your editing privileges will be curtailed. I would consider this a tremendous shame as I know you have a lot of energy and knowledge that you wish to bring to improving articles. --John (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion in this section is leading nowhere and is now finished and closed per . Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Knowing that everything I say can and will be wrong
I am hoping everyone can work together, eventually, but you don't seem to see that the RfC has not made a cordon sanitaire around any particular disagreement (including specific issue of reference format). I was just (by chance) the first one to start objecting about things. There is a huge set of other objections that must be worked through. The differences between the arguing sides are real and substantial. So for me to talk to Rexx and Prairie would not... I mean, I do not believe it would magically solve anything. I suggest you do three things: 1) Take a deep breath, calm down. 2) Very calmly ask if he thinks he can see any way forward, on the two fronts (references, and content) and finally 3) do not argue with his suggestions, or argue with anyone else about anything else. Embrace the wisdom of eventualism.  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , and maybe many others: You may have noticed that I kinda disappeared from the discussion. That's 75% because I was busy in real life, but 25% because the discussion could genuinely benefit from an extended (at least two week long) coffee break. Can we all step back and stop editing and stop commenting? I'm not speaking as a voice from above but hopefully as a friend. We all need a break. We all need to take an extended break from Poor Jane, take many quiet moments, and get clear heads and fresh perspectives. That means no editing Jane, no editing Jane's talk page, and not even any thinking about Jane. Do whatever refreshes you. Knowing that everything I say can and will be wrong, and can and will be misinterpreted, that is my heartfelt and sincere advice: coffee break. Two weeks' worth of coffee...  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 23:46, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Tim riley is retired, check user talk. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Tim riley is also a participant of the current RFC. Your interesting plea above has been ignored by your close edit friends and possibly you could reconsider trying to outreach to both Prairieplant and RexxS since the three of you were very close to coming to agreement on the citations. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I mean he just now retired from Wikipedia. He is no longer editing. Your ping will not reach him... Also, that whole Jane Austen thing is way too overheated for me right now. I will take my own advice, immediately above Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe you and I did not just ping him here. I did ask that you outreach to Prairie and RexxS again since the three of you were very close to agreement. Since you set the original fuse that sparked all this, could you at least try to outreach to them. Just try, especially with Prairie. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can get Laser to respond to those items here it would be a pleasure to see such comments from an experienced editor such a Laser. It would be very helpful for you to also take a deep and meditative breadth and find that inner strength that will lead you to the always faithful Prairie. I think you would be surprised that he has some very welcoming ideas about completing the cross-citation formatting between Harvard and MLA to your satisfaction which he states is already 95% complete. Just try. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

List of Alien characters
In your opinion, it would be ideal to fill in the page with pictures of actors, where there aren't character images available? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss on article talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I went forward with that, but please understand the context, in which Fountains-of-Paris specifically left a suggestion, so I felt it was acceptable to address it directly. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems at Austen
Hi Fountains-of-Paris, I'm leaving this note about your reverts at Jane Austen. There are problems with the material you added, and there is consensus on talk that they ought to be fixed. If you revert to your version again, you're likely to be reported to WP:AN/EW for edit-warring (see Edit warring), or to WP:AN/I for community discussion, where a topic ban might be requested (see Topic ban). Please note that I'm active on that article as an editor, not as an admin; when I say you might be reported for edit-warring, I mean that you might be reported to an uninvolved admin.

The RfC you started, where you ask for consensus to change the citation style and add templates, has nothing to do with the content issues. It doesn't mean that the content must remain frozen on your version for 30 days.

It's worth noting that you seemed to acknowledge on 1 September (after reverting to your version, then requesting page protection for a second time) that you began the citation-style RfC to halt the removal of the sections you added ("But not section blanking over and over again, especially when an RFC has been opened by me last week to prevent this very issue from re-occurring.") It's also worth noting that you caused a similar problem with multiple RfCs at Johann Sebastian Bach, according to this post from (also this AN/I).

I'm sorry to write to you like this, but it's important to make you aware of the steps editors are likely to pursue if the dispute continues. If you disagree with the content changes, please open a section on Talk:Jane Austen and present an argument in support of your version. SarahSV (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

You must stop your disruptive editing immediately. I will be requesting admin intervention. --Mirokado (talk) 15:03, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreement with Prairiep on Talk page that editing is out-of-process for the still Open RfC and BRD is invoked. Open RfC is for full CITEVAR for all 300 citations in article from top to bottom. 1RR Caution at RFPP. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Laser brain  (talk)  15:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know
I stopped watching Jane Austen and Reception History and all affiliated articles. Two editors seem to have taken ownership of the articles, understand only each other, revise anything added by another editor or delete it, and have a group of friends to block all reasonable discussion by other editors. They also block the use of reference formats to make the articles easier to read, regardless of their text, and the other advantages of reference formats, especially the Harvard system to link a reference to its full citation in a very long reference list. They are writing for academia in my view, not the usual reader (this article is one good discovery from the whole process WP:RF) and do not know that academia is way ahead of them on software for references, knowing how to use formatted references to meet their own college requirements. I learned a lot from other editors, not those two, which knowledge I will keep using. I still love Jane Austen's books, and will keep reading them, but there is nothing much to love about the articles in Wikipedia about her. I am disappointed to see how that all proceeded, undoing good articles to be *their* good article, if they get so rated again. I have seen debates on Wikipedia before, participated in them, but nothing like that one, in the way high-up editors did not understand the issues and took personal sides. I do hope you edit again, with your positive attitude to encouraging editors to get involved with more topics. Many other editors were rather harsh on you in my view, and I do not see that you merited such treatment. All the best,  --Prairieplant (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Questions about an editor
I had just asked User:Pacerier to create a discussion page for his proposed merger of Truth and Theory of justification when I noticed you had flagged a similar issue in response to someone else on the talk page. I also noticed people complaining of test edits (ironically on test). Is this editor a low-level vandal? Is there any reason to create the merger talk page, or should I just remove the tags? Thanks — Iadmc  ♫ talk 07:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)