User talk:JNagarya

Welcome!
Hello, JNagarya, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Singularity42 (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

This Great Unknowing: Last Poems
In response to your email, I turned This Great Unknowing: Last Poems into a redirect. Redirects are explained at WP:Redirect. The reason I did that is because the article you created met neither the general guideline for notability (WP:Notability), or the specific notability for books (Notability (books)). Usually, when a notable author has a book or collection - and the book/collection itself is not independently notable of the author - we redirect the article on the book/collection to the article about the author. If needed, a few sentences can be added to the author's article about the work. There's no need for a sepearte article in these situations. Singularity42 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC) Gad are you people imperiously stupid.

"The Grat Unkowing: Last Poems" is not an article. It is a volume of poetry, by Denise Levertov, and was properly listed under Primary Works, which is what it is.

Know trhe fuck what you're doing before interfering with others work. Or I won't bother contributing my extenisve knowledge about anything whatsoever; after all, you and your in-grouip owen Wickipedia, even whern you haven't a clue about that which you are uninnvitedly and ignorantly interfering. JNagarya

Speedy deletion nomination of Overland to the Islands


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Overland to the Islands requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of With Eyes at the Back of Our Heads


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on With Eyes at the Back of Our Heads requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take some time to study the links in the content above before you attempt to do more editing. You'll only get yourself blocked if you keep this up, especially with the attitude you've been showing. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirected now, but go ahead and study those links. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Especially follow the instructions here:


 * "If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles."

Brangifer (talk) 07:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

1.  Among the "Five Pillars":

"Be open and welcoming."

2. In view of the fact that I am not about writing an "article," the ton of information on writing "articles" with which I've been flooded is, being entirely off-point, of no help whatsoever.

3. I am developing a Bibliography. Nothing in it is other than straightforwared fact. That includes the addition to the Bibliography of Tables of Contents to which entries in the Bibliography link.

4. NONE of the flood of information flung my way addresses any of those facts.

5. A latest identifies two places within which this issue -- still not acknowledged, let alone addressed, for what it in fact is: Bibliography entries linked to Tables of Contents -- is not to be addressed. But it doesn't identify where it is to be addressed.

I have a life as reader, writer, and author. Among other work, I am focused upon developing an extensive Denise Levertov bibliography offline, for my own use, and providing relevant portions of that work product for others' information and use via Wikipedia.

Instead of the issue being addressed -- see "3.," above -- I'm flooded with information which doesn't apply, but none which does apply. If I am making a specific error in my postings of Tables of Contents -- how much rocket science does doing so entail? -- then I am so far getting no help whatsoever as concerns correcting such presumed error. Provide a specific, unobscured "How To" instead of a ton of clutter in my email inbox.

At this point -- I have a life, and much work to do not related to Wikipedia -- I am increasingly motivated to simply go away, rather than be confronted with the hassle of going through email after email which contains no relevant information. I have been provided beyond more than enough information about writing "articles," despite my repeated statement of the fact -- this barely acknowledged, and only in passing -- that I am not writing "articles," or anything remotely controversial, or subject to "interpretation," or expressing "opinion".

JNagarya 17:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you are not interested in writing articles, then why are you here? You can also improve existing articles, but using Wikipedia as a storage place for part of your off-line projects ("....extensive Denise Levertov bibliography offline, for my own use, and providing relevant portions of that work product for others' information and use via Wikipedia.) is not allowed. We don't have articles with only a table of contents, and articles about books don't usually contain the complete TOC anyway. That's not the idea. If you find such an "article", then it should either become a proper article or be deleted immediately. We don't allow it to exist half finished. It has to at least be a proper stub. You're not doing that. This is an encyclopedia, not your personal blog or place to place things for your own personal use.


 * I don't think anyone has complained about what you've done being an "interpretation" or "expressing opinion," so that is a straw man argument. You say that most of the information that has been provided to you doesn't apply. Yes, it does apply, but you're ignoring it. It doesn't apply to what you've been doing because you're not supposed to do what you've been doing. Do what ALL those instructions say to create a proper article.


 * If you wish to write an article about one of Denise Levertov's books, then do it properly. Look at a good article and see what has been done. Here's a classic to use as a model: Les Misérables. It's not just a TOC, and it doesn't even contain the complete TOC. It has real content. Because it's such a classic, we allow quite a bit of detail, but other books should be summarized in a much shorter style. Here are some articles and stubs I wrote from scratch: Reindeer hunting in Greenland, Matchbox sign, Joint manipulation, X Femmes, and The Girl on the Bridge (1951 film).


 * As you can see, we have many types of articles and stubs here, but we don't have just a TOC. That is why your non-"articles" were deleted. The deletion template stated it a bit shorter, but you must have missed that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Since you are not interested in writing articles, then why are you here?"

I expressly said that I am developing the Denise Levertov Bibliography. I didn't begin it, but am expanding it.

"You can also improve existing articles, but using Wikipedia as a storage place for part of your off-line projects ("....extensive Denise Levertov bibliography offline, for my own use, and providing relevant portions of that work product for others' information and use via Wikipedia.) is not allowed."

That isn't what I'm doing. I am developing the Denise Levertov Bibliography -- it is not "storage" for my information, and to assert otherwise is a red herring and a straw man "argument". I didn't begin the Bibliography, but I am developing it.

Will you next tell me that all the Bibliographies input by others will forthwith be deleted based upon those specious assertions?

As for Tables of Contents: I pointed to an entry -- Emily Dickinson -- which has Tables of Contents linked to Bibliography entries. I'm not doing anytrhing others are not doing. And, yes: Tables of Contents have a purpose and a use: if someone wants to determine, as example, from which volume a Levertov poem came, Tables of Contents will provide that information.

Moreover, when I began developing the Denise Levertov Bibliography, there were already two entries linking to Tables of Contents. I didn't put them there; and they were there for a long time. Oddly enough, those weren't deleted until the challenges to my work began. And that two was "weird": there were at the time some four Tables of Contents entered -- but only one was deleted. My error was to mention that there were others -- which were not being chellenged or deleted -- the result being that those too -- including those which someone else had entered -- were deleted.

The D3enise Levertov page alread has "articles" which are sufficient as they are. My focus is developing the Bibliography, which is an entirely legitimate endeavor.

JNagarya 03:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I am really trying to figure out your intentions. If you'll provide the following information, I'll be able to help you better, and I'd like to do that. I'm not your enemy. I've been editing here for nearly ten years and have quite a bit of experience:


 * As far as Emily Dickinson goes, please point me to what you're talking about. Where is this TOC, and where are other examples of stand alone TOCs like what you created? (Just because others existed doesn't mean they should have been.) Provide links and instructions about where to look. If I can see how they are being used properly, then I'll understand you better.


 * Where is this Denise Levertov bibliography you're expanding? You say that you didn't begin it, so it exists somewhere. The idea sounds interesting. There is one in the proper place right now. It looks good. What more do you wish to do there? I don't see any problems with it. Bibliographies of this type don't get deleted, but they do get abbreviated sometimes. Since I'm not an expert on Levertov, that has no interest to me.


 * As far as developing content goes, it's usually best to do this in your own "user space", which is not the same as "article space". (Anything appearing in article space is suddenly no longer your own and will be edited mercilessly, and often deleted completely. Deletion is what happens more often than not with new content. That was the fate of my first article. It was a humiliating and infuriating experience. I simply didn't understand how Wikipedia works, and it can be a very hard experience to do that. My protests nearly got me blocked.) When your draft is formatted properly according to our standards, then you can move it to article space.


 * Here is a sandbox I have prepared for you to use: User:JNagarya/With Eyes at the Back of Our Heads. Just start writing in it. You can create similar sandboxes for your own use. When you think they are ready for launching, feel free to contact me, Kudpung, or any other very experienced user. If you launch a seriously incomplete article, it will likely get deleted rather quickly, and no one is required to ask you, since it is no longer yours. It's best to prevent that from happening because it makes it harder to create the article later. It doesn't have to be perfect, but it has to be good enough that after the first flurry of editings and deletions (which always happens) enough will be left to avoid it getting deleted.


 * Now, lest we forget, please provide the information I need to help you. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Your accusation of harassment is duly noted. I suggest you strike that immediately, as it is evidence of a serious policy violation, the failure to assume good faith. Without that, you have no business editing here. If you impugn the motives of other editors, you will not be able to edit in a collaborative manner.


 * Now please respond to the thoughts and questions I expressed above in this thread. That's the way to deal with the situation. I need that information from you so I can understand what you mean. Maybe you have a point. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

September 2013
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:JNagarya. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. '' I've already ceased bothering contributing because of the interference by others without bothering to determine what I've been doing, and without misrepresenting that I'm doing -- and on top of that ignoring those facts.

"I understand that you are feeling frustrated, but the kind of language used here is completely inappropriate, regardless of context. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident either - you made a similar comment here. Again, we all get annoyed at other editors sometimes, but lashing out with personal attacks is not the way to solve that." "Lashing out"? When will these so-called editors cease interering in that about which they know nothing -- and which they misrepresent in so doing? When will they determine what is happening instead of jumping to false conclusions -- and then persisting in pushing their false conclusions?

"In addition, I believe you and the other editor are talking past each other."

I've been saying that since the outset. But instead of addressing the facts -- what I'm doing, instead of mischaracterizing it and ppushing that -- the THEIR "talking past" continues. And you provide yet another example:

"They referred to the Wikipedia article This Great Unknowing: Last Poems which was created by you, and not to the work This Great Unknowing: Last Poems written by Denise Levertov.  bonadea'' contributions talk 11:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)"

The so-called "article" was simply a list of the TABLE OF CONTENTS of the volume -- which was patterned after others that had ALREADY been entered BY OTHERS, without ANYONE deleting them. Instead of dealing with that fact -- a TABLE OF CONTENTS is NOT an "article," an "opinion" that needs to be "verified" (I have the volumes at hand, from the Tables of Contents of which I directly transcribe) -- I'm attacked, and subjected to a flood of irrelevant information which has nothing whatever to do with those facts. And my repeated statement of those facts are not only not acknowledged and addressed, but are wholly ignored.

Nothing is addressed, so no relevant information -- if necessary -- is provided. Instead there are high-handed without-warning DELETIONS based upon FALSE conclusions about the materials being deleted. One would think such "editors" would have learned by now how to READ what is in front of them; how to LISTEN and HEAR what is being said, instead of trampling it under foot, burying it under a flood of irrelevancies.

Moreover: there were several Tables of Contents entered, years before, before I did anything -- and there were no objections to -- or deletions of -- them, by ANYONE. Only after I posted several were ALL deleted.

As for interfernece from those who are in fact clueless -- and refusing to accept and conform to that relevant fact: in two instances -- one being Denise Levertov -- single poems were included in the list of "Primary VOLUMES". If those lecturing me, and deleting as "articles" NON-articles, knew sufficient to legitimately intervene, they'd be deleting individual poems which are NOT "Volumes".

Want to drive people away? then continue the imperious interference, the bullying, the incoherent attacks on me, the flood of irrelevant information, for doing that I AM NOT doing. Continue to ignore what I AM saying while accusing ME of being the jerk.

JNagarya 02:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)