User talk:Midnightdreary

Note: My discussions can be unpredictable. Leave me a message here, and I'll usually respond here (though I might just respond on your talk page instead). If you would like to discuss a specific article, I would feel comfortable using the talk page of that specific article to encourage others to join in. Note that you are also welcome to email me (using the "email this user" link) but I may be slower to respond. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

/Archive 1 · /Archive 2 · /Archive 3 · /Archive 4 · /Archive 5

"Even so I strongly encourage people to be bold and mercilessly edit those pages."

Many thanks for finding the right places for the "Book Blurb" addition. I'm a complete amateur at this whole thing (and intent to say that way!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art1Court (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	:-) Ipreferthebook (talk) 19:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Minightdreary! After getting the articles for The Great God Pan and "Lot No. 249" to GA status, I now want to do the same for one of the most underrated Poe stories - "The Oblong Box". Would you be interested in helping me with this endeavor?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

It is a wonderful story. I'll do what I can. Thank you for reaching out. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should I count the 1969 film The Oblong Box as a loose adaptation of Poe's story and add the talk to the category "Short stories adapted into films?" MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. Do we have a source that references it as a "loose adaptation"? Incidentally, its my favorite of the Corman-Poe films. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The picture I put in the article depicts a lighthouse that didn't exist when the story was published; is that an issue? Also, remember to ping me in your response. Thanks so much for your guidance and help! MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my earlier message? MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry I had not responded. I have no opinion. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits at the Hawthorne biography. Given your interest in Hawthorne I thought to ask if you could look at the Melville biography at some time. Melville and Hawthorne were friends for a while, and we are presently looking for someone who might be able to take over the assessment of the Melville article following an extended Wikibreak by another editor. Is this possible for you? CodexJustin (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thinking of me. Unfortunately, I don't have much time to dedicate Wikipedia any more so I'm afraid I wouldn't be reliable for such a task. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Midnightdreary. I'm just posting to let you know that

Hello. I'm updating the outreach:Wikipedian in Residence (if you know of anyone missing, please add them). Is it correct for your WiR position? In particular, is there any page that summarises the work that was done? I've used the current table info to update Rob Velella (Q72235999) so that I can automate the WiR table (in progress). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From reading the page for 'The Raven' I have noticed that there is not an inclusion of the song 'The Raven' By the band Rotting Christ which is adapted from the Edgar Allan Poe poem, I am not sure if there is a reason for this or if it has been not included/referenced accidentally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heretics_(album) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.12.226 (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be included? Stuff like this is generally considered trivia and not particularly useful for understanding the original poem. Adaptation lists are also not intended to be 100% complete but merely representative. If it consoles you, it is already included in

The Raven in popular culture. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Midnightdreary: Could I interest you in participating in a peer review of John Neal (writer)? I recently overhauled the whole thing, replacing the article I wrote in 2006 and that you, among others, have helped to slowly improve over the last 14 years. I think the new article is a major improvement and hopefully worth getting the article's status upgraded, but before I request that upgrade, I put out a request for peer review.

I am asking you since you are appear to be invested in helping maintain articles in this genre.

The peer review request is linked at the top of talk:John Neal (writer).

Thanks in advance for the help!

-Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw this. I'm not able to assist but I thank you for thinking of me. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Midnightdreary: No problem. Just thought I would ask. -Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rob. Thought you might be interested in this novel. The Poe influence seems right up your alley. It contains deep-track, B-side types of Poe references (not superficial pop culture Poe errors). You have to have really read Poe to catch Some of the allusions.

The Grave Below https://www.amazon.com/dp/1735735019/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_T0DAFbTYKR0X7

MorbidAnatomy (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's fantastic! I do love pop culture Poe. Thanks for reaching out (and great to hear from you). --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope all is well. I understand that you're not as active as you used to be on here, so if time doesn't allow, no worries. I've been working on O Captain! My Captain! and would like to take the poem through a peer review and potentially to FAC. While it's a rather short article on a pretty well known topic, the sourcing is very limited, and I've been unable to find much more to add to the article. I'm not asking for a full review, but you seem to be the expert on poem articles and I was hoping I might be able to bother you for a few tips on how to move forward. Any suggestions you may have are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:49, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reaching out, Eddie. I think the article is looking great compared to the last time I saw it some time ago. I'll try to give it a more thorough review as time allows. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear! I've opened a peer review here, if you get any time to add comments I'd really appreciate it— I'm struggling to take the prose from "plodding" to "soaring"... Anyways, whatever happens, hope you are staying safe and all the best. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it before the revert, the second page had two tidbits :)

Rereading this, I had missed that the ship was wrecked on Fire Island, not Long Island Sound as claimed, so I guess removing the source was well done :) --Lent (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Many thanks for this fuller explication (oh, pardon the pun). --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit, I like it! Did you object to the way the publication details interrupted the flow of the prose in the article? I believe Poe would have agreed with you. I wasn't sure if they'd be helpful or not, seeing that apparently few people have ever read that celebratory Dec. 1841 editorial note in Graham's; there wasn't a word about it in the Wikipedia article, for example. In fact, Poe's success at Graham's seems to have passed by quite unnoticed. To me, it heightens the already tremendous (and well-known) tragedy of the appearance just one month later of Virginia's tuberculosis while she was happily singing & playing the piano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWPCHI (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit, I like it! Did you object to the way the publication details interrupted the flow of the prose in the article? I believe Poe would have agreed with you. I wasn't sure if they'd be helpful or not, seeing that apparently few people have ever read that celebratory Dec. 1841 editorial note in Graham's; there wasn't a word about it in the Wikipedia article, for example. In fact, Poe's success at Graham's seems to have passed by quite unnoticed. To me, it heightens the already tremendous (and well-known) tragedy of the appearance just one month later of Virginia's tuberculosis while she was happily singing & playing the piano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IWPCHI (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the message. I quite disagree with your premise. A huge portion of the article on Graham's Magazine discusses Poe's success there. As for your question: These articles are meant to be overviews and excessively precise details are unnecessary. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Midnightdreary! During John Neal (writer)'s recent FAN, one of the reviewers created an American literary nationalism stub so it could be linked from Neal's article. I added a little to it, but my knowledge on the subject is so limited to Neal's role, I couldn't add much. Since you appear to have a broader knowledge of 19th century American literature than I do, I thought I would request your assistance. If you have anything to add or otherwise improve the article, please do! I hope you can. --Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightdreary, hope all is well. In working on Whitman's lincoln poems, I've recently created Walt Whitman's lectures on Abraham Lincoln, Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln, William D. O'Connor, and am looking into an article on Peter Doyle (one of his potential romantic interests, to put it lightly). I just wanted to ask for a second opinion before going further-- how do you think they are looking? Am I missing something obvious or is there too much on something else? As always, any comments you may have would be greatly appreciated but please don't feel obligated. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never too much Whitman! I approve -- and congratulations on the great work. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks great! It does look ready for a DYK nomination. Thanks for your help! Thriley (talk) 16:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Really nice work on the article! I'm constantly surprised by the gaps in our coverage of poetry. This week I've been working on Langston Hughes ("Harlem", "Mother to Son", and, if I have time, "The Negro Speaks of Rivers"). I have Lowell's "Commemoration Ode" on my to-do list (even if it is a boring poem), and maybe Shelley (Ozymandias is ripe for a re-write) and Yeats ("Nineteen Hundred and Nineteen") next week. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all great ideas to work on. I was also thinking about "Sympathy" by Paul Laurence Dunbar but didn't have much success finding sources. I guess the most famous ones are written about less these days. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I took a cursory look at my sourcing and found enough to throw together an ok-ish article on "Sympathy". I'd be happy to start it if it wouldn't be stepping on your toes too much. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! No stepping on toes in this world of collaboration! --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:45, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

created at Sympathy (poem). Anything you might have to add would be greatly appreciated-- I'm still working on "reception/analysis" section writing, and some of Rumens' analysis (the section beginning "the diction is occasionally over-literary ("opes" for "opens").") was sufficiently complex that I didn't feel competent to distill it, so if you're interested, I'm in need of some help with that? Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that if you have any other articles you'd like to nominate for DYK, let me know and I'd be happy to provide QPQs if you don't feel ready to do so yourself. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just figured out that T. M. Turner's marriage was performed by the same fellow as Poe and Virginia Clemm. It seems like it would have been shortly before Converse died. I was specifically curious if you could confirm he was in that part of Virginia at that time, or if you knew anything further. It would be the third connection to Poe from he or his wife, as his family also has a connection to Horseshoe Robinson, for which Poe wrote a review, and his wife had a connection to Rudulph Evans, who at least sculpted Poe. Cheers. Cake (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know much about him but, you're right, it would have been at the end of Converse's life. It seems possible but it also implies the man moved around quite a bit. He's buried in Kentucky but I also found letters of his written from Philadelphia in the 1860s. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I'm clarifying my own thought above, it seems he simultaneously published his newspaper in both Philadelphia and Richmond for a number of years. It's perhaps more difficult to figure out the Kentucky component. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Louisville too. "History of Louisville from Its First Settlement to the Year 1896" mentions him in the newspapers bit. Appreciate the swift reply. Suppose I'm off looking for an account of the last year of his life somewhere. Cake (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this on Margaret Fuller's talk page as well: Its removal is fine with me; even more than confusing, it is unnecessary, and the sentences before and after it flow better without it. Moreover, the citation to page xi is wrong, but I couldn't find the right page. Page xi is at amazon.com, and the quotation is not on it. I found the quotation at Google Books, but Google Books doesn't provide page numbers. I am suspicious of the other page citations in the paragraph as well. The person who put them in used "pp" to designate "page" (singular) and capitalized the first letter in the Roman numbers, e.g., Xi. I fixed those errors, but couldn't check the page numbers.02:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Maurice Magnus (talk)

The reason that I put Matteson and VQR under "Sources" is that there is no "Further reading" section. Shouldn't there be one for such an important writer about whom numerous books have been written? I don't want to start one just for Matteson and VQR, as they are not among the most important books on Whitman, and I am unwilling to compile a bibliography at this time.Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maurice Magnus. The book was not used as a source and, therefore, should not be added under a section called "Sources". It seems like you understand that so thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you disagree with my explanation for adding what I did. My explanation was: For "Franklin Evans" and "Memoranda," the question is why not? They might be useful. For "The Wound Dresser" and "Walt Whitman Speaks," they are not modern editions; they are the only editions. People interested in Whitman might want to know of them. What's the harm in including them?

Your statement, WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING, was not informative. If you're willing to compromise, I would forgo noting the later editions of "Franklin Evans" and "Memoranda," but I think that adding "The Wound Dresser" and "Walt Whitman Speaks" are important because they are Whitman's writings and talk that are not noted elsewhere in the entry. Again, what is gained by deleting them?Maurice Magnus (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I would recommend you read the links that I provided. Just because someone finds it interesting or useful (your exact words) is not good enough reason for inclusion. I would add that it looks promotional rather than encyclopedic to note the modern publisher and editor. Thanks for understanding. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info, and I will remember the distinction between user and talk pages. Maurice Magnus (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reference tag "Quinn" had been used for too many references. Having one tag with a longer span fixed the problem. --Treybien2 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here !

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I googled images of "Scarlet Letter first edition title page." It appears that the first American edition uses a comma, and the first British edition uses a colon. Both editions have a period after "Romance," but I won't edit the entry to add that, as I fear that it will just cause confusion among the few who care. Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Midnightdreary noticing you added an image to the article, just to inform you there is imo a better quality image available now. Would you mind if I replac the actual one? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular interest in that article and absolutely do not need to provide permission to replace an image I added a decade ago. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Midnightdreary, noticing you edit, just wanted to inform the orginal date was DECEMBER 1862 ISSUE. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I'm not sure what point you were making. My edit did correct the date to December 1862. Are you telling me what the correct date is after I put in the correct date? What are you trying to say? --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goldilocks and the Three Bears has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Wizardman 23:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me edit the game theory and Purloined Letter Section since I see you did not like it. Danielmabuse (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I don't like it. See

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I think the biggest concern was how the sources were used -- citations should be complete and included in the appropriate spot. If you look more closely at the page, you might get a better idea of how to properly add citations to new material. Additionally, I would caution about undue weight; the topic in question should only be a paragraph, at most. Best of luck. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]