User talk:Midnightdreary/Archive 5

I noticed the changes to the R. W. Emerson navbox, and I was hoping you could give me some advice regarding when to use quotes and when to use itallics. I've done 40+ navboxes, and I want to make sure they're all as good as they can be. Some of my navboxes, like Template:Robert Burns and Template:Emily Dickinson only feature poems, while others, like Template:Matthew Arnold and Template:John Dryden list both poetry and prose. Any guidelines you can give me would be much appriciated, as I intend to do many more navboxes.--INeverCry 16:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stay true to Wikipedia's manual of style section on titles and you'll do fine:

MOS:TITLE. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the quick response.--INeverCry 17:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at WP:MOS, I see that quotation marks are recommended for essays and short stories along with short poems. I guess I'll have to change the Emerson box and almost all of my other ones. Any thoughts?--INeverCry 17:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think essays are generally in quotes. With that said, however, if you notice that most books about Emerson list, say, "The American Scholar" as The American Scholar, maybe that's the way to do it. --01:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll just leave well enough alone.--INeverCry 03:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the rotation of the image (and of the other one, even though, strangely, that thumbnail came out right at first). --dave pape (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great - thanks for taking care of it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested in this.--INeverCry 21:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt, this is interesting! Thanks so much! --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple others: E.A. Poe facimile letter: File:E A Poe Letter.jpg; Whitman at 36 :File:Walt Whitman at 36.jpg. I'm going back through some of my earliest Commons uploads and cleaning them up.--INeverCry 01:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, Baudelaire interpreted Poe on democracy and socialism and the ideology of progress in the same manner (see his "Further Notes on Edgar Poe") and it certainly was not because he wanted to assassinate his character. Nor do I see anything defamatory about ascribing those opinions to Poe; in fact, I find them quite sensible and prescient. As Meltzer notes, Poe's views were formed at a young age and consistently held throughout his life. I don't think too many biographers would dispute that Poe was an aristocratically-minded pessimist and those views are consonant with such a personality. Again, unless you provide evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to believe he was being "humorous" or "ironic" when he denounced democracy and reform-cranks. Meltzer was a legitimate historian and I don't think his target audience impugns his scholarship, especially since many adolescents and teenagers are interested in Poe, but if you want another contemporary scholar with a similar assessment, there is also Charles A. Coulombe. I can find exact page numbers etc. later but to me, the Brooks quote more than adequately sums up Poe's views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobineau (talk • contribs) 15:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Multiple sources would definitely add some heft against my

featured article. Again, evidence would be helpful that comes from something other than a satirical work of fiction (unfortunately, vague references to other people like Baudelaire and Coulombe are not helpful here). --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Best wishes.--85.59.202.164 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnight, I was looking at the

It's never been particularly active in group efforts, so far as I recall, and really just provides a forum for individuals looking for feedback. I'm sure people are still contributing to poetry articles but maybe not expressing much of it on the Poetry Project page. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was just wondering who might have been involved in taking a lead in it back in the day, with drives and initiative as things. Your name came up. I'll ask around. Best wishes

talk) 01:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, I'm not sure what sort of "things" anyone ever took the lead in. We weren't really involved with group projects that required leadership. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I thought you might like to talk about the question of Edgar Allan Poe's family background. I can understand that you don't want to have any claims that mightn't be 100% true, so I've re-drafted it there to put the emphasis on the fact that there were stories current among the Poe family themselves and their friends of their Irish heritage (and relationship to Admiral MacBride. Perhaps you'd like to give some feedback on it, maybe suggest some changes? This might be a bit more suitable for the article:

It has been suggested that the Poe family was originally from

The sources would still be the same (and can be added before editing the page itself), but they aren't being treated as the objective truth of his ancestry. I look forward to your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blippityblop (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't look at me: I'm just trying to follow Wikipedia's high standards for

undue weight, each family member would have an equal amount of information on them. If that happened, I would ask if his family history two generations removed needs to take up so much space. Ultimately, it's irrelevant considering the subject. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm looking at you because it was you who saw fit to delete my edits twice. I would take issue with your views on relevancy/irrelevancy, as giving the ethnic background of a well known (especially American) figure is rather usual on wikipedia and encyclopedias. As for the sources, considering one is from a fiancée and the other is directly quoting a Poe cousin, they're obviously legitimate sources. I will take the discussion to the Poe talk page and see if people agree/disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blippityblop (talk • contribs) 06:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I should be clearer: I'm not giving my personal opinion, but responding based on what I know as a long-term Wikipedia editor as far as policy, sourcing, and the high standards of a featured article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you have time for a question. I've done a big expansion of George Crabbe the old poet. I need the opinion of someone with GA and FA experience with poet and poetry articles regarding the critical ("legacy") section of Crabbe. I tried asking Wadewitz, but she's too busy with students. There aren't very many GA and FA poet articles as I'm sure you know, and you have several of them. I especially noticed Jones Very, a lesser known poet as is Crabbe. Can you let me know if you think Crabbe might be GA worthy? If it happens that you don't have time, do you know who I could ask? INeverCry 01:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I don't have time enough for a significant response. However, upon first look, it seems that the article has plenty of content. The "Legacy" section seems strong enough that it may even call for subheadings. Going through a GA or, certainly, an FA review, however, will almost certainly get some negative response to the use of such significantly old sources (1888 and 1903). Those two sources seems quite heavily relied upon; is there nothing more recent? We all know how different an 1888 biography looks compared to something from the past few years. I might also suggest that the lede does not accurately summarize the article as very little of his biographical details are included there. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a quick response. I don't think I'll subject myself or my article to GAN any time soon. ;) The 2 sources are actually the newest I know of (he's really a forgotten author), and are based on the original bio by Crabbe's son, done in the 1840s or 50s. I was planning some other expansions where the sources are public domain and old, but now I wonder if that's a good idea. I'm glad you mentioned it before I wrote 5 or 6 more huge articles. That really gives me something to think about. Thanks again. INeverCry 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A thought: these older sources should be ok in regard to simple biographical detail, ie place of birth, family and friends, schools attended, positions held, homes and travel, publication details for works, etc. A modern bio might differ in matters of politics, philosophy, religion, sex, etc, but not that much in plain biographical details. I could see an old bio not mentioning a few things, smoothing over controversial details, or making a few errors, but that kind of thing could always be filled in with a modern ref, and modern refs could be used to adjust or support material if needed.

Another thought: Most modern bios reference older ones for much of their biographical details. For instance, many of the modern Bronte bios still use material from Gaskell's 1857 work.

I've re-organized the legacy section of Crabbe somewhat as per your advice, and I'll see what I can do with the lead as well. Another reason I'm not in a hurry to do a GAN is that my last one took about 2 months from start to finish because the reviewer was too busy. During that 2 months he spent right around 4 days actually doing the review (after repeated reminders from me).

BTW, don't feel as if this ramble needs a response, as I'm prone to thinking outloud, and you've already helped plenty. ;) INeverCry 20:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More rambling: I've crossed out the above about not nominating. GAN would seem to be the only way of really testing those older refs. I don't want to start on other projects of the same nature without knowing how the refs will stand up. I also don't like the idea of letting Crabbe sit around without atleast trying for GA. I've expanded the lead too. INeverCry 22:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see you did some work on this article. I've recently been adding bits using DNB and New York Times as sources but the trouble is, they conflict. NYT accounts written at the time of Burton's death say he was born 1802; DNB says 1804. A record on www.familysearch says 1802, but not christened till 1809.

DNB says his estranged wife successfully claimed dower rights on his estate after 7 appeals, culminating in her making legal history when the Supreme Court decided wives who were aliens were still entitled to dower. NYT (in 1864) reports rejection of her claim precisely on the grounds she was an alien, but says nothing about her later success; until 1916, when reporting the death of Burton's son, they suddenly do.

I also added a reference to Burton's short story 'The Secret Cell' (1837), which I just read in an anthology of Victorian detective fiction. The editor Michael Sims suggests - though acknowledging Burton's work isn't in the same class - that Poe would probably have been aware of it, and it may have swayed him towards writing a detective story. Is this worth adding? RLamb (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with "DNB", nor do I know much about researching genealogical stuff. But Wiki policy says we should just use reliable published third-party sources. For the birth year, I'd say pick one that you can verify with two or more sources, and add a note that there is another source that says something else. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 'DNB' is the British 'Dictionary of National Biography' and they give Burton's date of birth as 1804. They're usually very reliable, but still - nobody's perfect. I don't feel bold enough to alter the birth year on the wiki entry, but I will put a footnote saying two other sources suggest it should be 1802. www.familysearch.org is a genealogical website that provides transcripts of church registers, censuses etc. The quality of the transcriptions varies sometimes as many were submitted by amateur genealogists, but this particular record about Burton seems okay to me.

I give up on the 'dower rights of an alien wife' thing. In 1864 the NYTimes reported a final quashing of the claims of the English wife; then in 1916 it said not only had her case been successful but actually a landmark ruling establishing the rights of other foreign wives. In the 62 years between it apparently said nothing. Maybe I'm searching their index wrongly.RLamb (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - I deleted it based on the 1872 reference: Poe died 23 years earlier, the theory seems quite ex post facto. But I'm not a Poe expert, so I will just re-write the reference to make it a little clearer.

Thanks for the award! It means alot coming from you. The GA and FA updating was easy compared to updating the DYKs, though. I hope I can find a simpler way of gathering them than searching manually thru the archives. It looks like the project lost its momentum a bit after the banning of this fellow. The work that you and he and folks like Yellow Sub have done on poetry and poets is some of the best stuff on wikipedia. The Poe and Dickenson articles are favorites of mine. I think I might be able to get a few GAs going sooner or later, but FA seems quite daunting. INeverCry 00:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Midnightdreary:

Would you please respond at Talk:Leaves of Grass?

On 3 September, you "Removed as trivial, tangential, and unimportant to the legacy of Whitman or his book" my addition to the Leaves of Grass article of an "In popular culture" category and an entry for Breaking Bad, in particular the "Gliding Over All" episode. I beg to differ with your decision, my friend, and am restoring my post. However out of sincere respect for you [you Whitman fan, you! :) ] and to avoid an edit war, I ask that you: (1) please consider my rationale, offered below, as well as (2) if you don't agree with me, please initiate a request for commentary at Talk:Leaves of Grass or request some other sort of resolution involving third parties.

By way of rationale, I offer:

• Two relevant precedents - the "In popular culture" sections of "The Second Coming" (poem) - which poem, incidentally, served as the eponymous title of The Sopranos episode 6.19 - and "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening"
• Links to relevant posts that illustrate popular recognition of this strong Breaking Bad - "Leaves of Grass" connection:
  • A discussion board post by Brandon Brummett, which responds to Dave Thier (12 September 2012). "Breaking Bad "Gliding Over All:" There's No Redemption for Walter White". Forbes.com. Retrieved 10 September 2012.

I went back and watched season 3 ep 6 where walt first meets gale. Man Vince and the writers must have knew all along how Hank would find out because it is sorta foreshadowed in that episode. When Hank calls Walt and asks about Jesse and the RV he suspects Walt is shown sitting reading the Leaves of Grass book. It has a tight shot on the book, walt is smiling reading and then Hank calls. Then Jesse leads Hank to the RV with walt in there and it is soooo close to Hank discovering Walt way back then. That book has been significant now for 3 years now almost. Genius, Best show ever on television, cant name a better.

Justified is next best right now.

• • Other references I've posted within my contribution to the article
  • There are so many others, I'll be lazy and just link the results of Googling "Breaking Bad Leaves of Grass"
• Data about what a huge cultural phenomenon Breaking Bad itself is, which fact renders the show's close associations with Walt Whitman and "Leaves of Grass" far more than "trivial, tangential, and unimportant to the legacy of Whitman or his book". For example, see:
  • "Gliding Over All" Reception, including the high ratings
  • The Breaking Bad article's intro paragraphs and Reception section
  • List of awards and nominations received by Breaking Bad

I look forward to your response (and those of other Wikipedians) to this same post at Talk:Leaves of Grass.

Warm wishes - --Froid 07:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for informing me of the policy against overlinking. I was not aware of it. I am new to Wikipedia and, frankly, I have next to no idea what I'm doing. I appreciate your informative feedback. (I would also like to thank you for not criticizing me like a few others have.) If you have any advice or constructive criticism to give me on acceptable editing, I would be more than grateful for it. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krueg (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. When I noticed that the Allans were listed as Poe's foster-family it just didn't look right to me. I asked a friend of mine about it and he told me that Poe was adopted as a toddler. Apparently, I recieved some bad information. I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. I'll be sure to double-check facts next time. Krueg (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the changes you made were already cited to reliable sources. I would argue that 1) these sources are better according to Wiki policy than your friend, and 2) you probably shouldn't change cited information without checking the cited source. Thanks! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your constructive criticism. I realize my mistake and it won't happen again. I would like to thank you for taking the time to inform me of my errors instead of just changing them or mocking them. Please know that I am genuinely grateful for your help (You are one of only two users I've found who are willing to actually instruct me) and that I am not deliberately trying to pester you. Thanks again. Krueg (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must be catching me on my good days!! :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is listed as a participant for

Kindly read the context in which a new contribution appears before removing it. This way, you will not have to make comments such as "no clear connection made" in reaction to an additional connection between Poe and Byron a few lines below a sentence introducing this connection and its relevance. The same statement hopefully doesn't have to be repeated in every other sentence just because you are in a rush. ;-) --Minutae (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I tend to be a bit aggressive in protecting the integrity of recognized articles (GAs and FAs). The citation helps so thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :-) --Minutae (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your reason. The picture is exactly as it looks in real life. However, I only wanted to help. If you want to keep the smaller black & white version, fine. --Lecen (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo was not retouched and it is (except for the frame which was removed to avoid copyright infringement) a faithful copy of what the actuaç daguerreotype looks like as you can see in here. If you don't want the picture because you personally prefer the black & white version, then it's ok. --Lecen (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on Brook Farm.

Unfortunately, the File:BrookFarm-engraving.jpg image you contributed in 2009 was very misleading. That book and image have a fictitious title: "Brook Farm" a pseudonym for "Pond Field Farm" in East Chester, New York; the 1859 book is by James Bolton (1824-1863), the youngest son of Rev. Robert Bolton. (Please refer to the image talk page for details and sources.)

Please help fix the wikimedia image data!

The image title BrookFarm-engraving.jpg is quite unfortunate in retrospect. Could it be changed to something like PondFieldFarmNY-BrookFarm-1859-engraving?

I am new to dealing with image tags. It seems that they should be changed to something along these lines:

Description 	
English: Engraving of "Brook Farm" a pseudonym for the Bolton's Pond Field Farm in East Chester, New York; printed 1859.
Date 	Published 1859; London, Wertheim, Macintosh, and Hunt
Source 	Brook Farm: the amusing and memorable of American country life (1859)
Author 	(from book by James Bolton)

-96.237.4.73 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be misleading at all... it seems to be categorically incorrect! I will make what adjustments I can but the file name "BrookFarm-engraving.jpg" seems fairly appropriate, as that is the title on the image from the book, even if it's a fictional version, and I don't have the power to rename files (I don't think). Thanks for pointing this out; I'll do what I can. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Gates Ajar, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have over 100 edits at

See my talk page for my response to your charge of a conflict of interest.Jnkatz1 (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightdreary, thank you for the kind note left here [2]. If I've been churlish with the editor, it's because they've apparently used at least three accounts on this and other articles to add unsourced content. Surely they're working in good faith, but there's never been a reference provided, nor an attempt to engage or explain their edits. So much for background. Very best, JNW (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say you've done anything wrong and I hope I wasn't stepping on toes. The editor's choice to remove your comment confused me so I thought I'd try a different approach. Hopefully, they will be more interested in finding the correct method and not become discouraged. This project can be overwhelming to newcomers, after all. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame them for removing my last remark; probably a standard warning template is less noxious than a personal chastisement. You weren't stepping on any toes. Civility needs no explanation, whereas dudgeon often does. JNW (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well [3]. I've requested page protection. If you have access to biographical sources that support the content in question, it would be terrific. Thanks, JNW (talk) 14:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your GAs and FAs and am quite impressed. I'd love to work on Leaves of Grass with you if you want to collaborate.--

Thank you for the offer! Alas, other projects have kept me from taking an active role on Wikipedia for a couple years now. For a project as important (and daunting) as Leaves of Grass, I certainly wouldn't be a reliable partner. I'm sure if you got started, however, others would join in. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note - I think your article is really good, and would be glad to work on it with you. Chesnutt's such a provocative writer. That will have to be after the holidays - and have happy ones! (Am trying to read "The Marrow of Tradition" online, as I've read histories of the events in Wilmington; find the dialect difficult to wade through.)Parkwells (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the GA process is pretty backed up. It could be some time before we hear a response. I'll get it ready soon, nonetheless. Best wishes to you in the coming new year. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NE Meetup #4: January 18 at MIT Building 5

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, You have been invited to the New England Wikimedians 2014 kick-off party and Wikipedia Day Celebration at Building Five on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus on Saturday, January 18th, from 3-5 PM. Afterwards, we will be holding an informal dinner at a local restaurant. If you are curious to join us, please do so, as we are always looking for people to come and give their opinion! Finally, be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. I hope to see you there! talk )

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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 Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

You're invited: Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March

Women's History Edit-a-thons in Massachusetts this March - You are invited!

New England Wikimedians is excited to announce a series of Wikipedia edit-a-thons that will be taking place at colleges and universities throughout Massachusetts as part of Wikiwomen's History Month from March 1 - March 31. We encourage you to join in an edit-a-thon near you, or to participate remotely if you are unable to attend in person (for the full list of articles, click here). Events are currently planned for the cities/towns of Boston, Northampton, South Hadley, and Cambridge. Further information on dates and locations can be found on our user group page. Questions? Contact Girona7 (talk )

The article The Wife of His Youth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Wife of His Youth for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seabuckthorn -- Seabuckthorn (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NE Meetup #5: April 19th at Clover Food Lab in Kendall Square

Dear Fellow Wikimedian, New England Wikimedians would like to invite you to the April 2014 meeting, which will be a small-scale meetup of all interested Wikimedians from the New England area. We will socialize, review regional events from the beginning of the year, look ahead to regional events of 2014, and discuss other things of interest to the group. Be sure to RSVP here if you're interested. Also, if you haven't done so already, please consider signing up for our mailing list and connect with us on Facebook and Twitter. We hope to see you there! talk) and Maia Weinstock (talk )

(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Why would the Wadsworth House not be official? Washington was Commander-in-Chief, he moved in with his staff and directed operations from there, he took command of the Continental Army while occupying it. I've never seen anything that implies that he moved in intending it only to be a temporary headquarters. Had space and condition problems not arisen, he might never have moved to the Longfellow House.

Even if for 2 weeks, the Wadsworth House WAS his first headquarters. -- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's always just been my understanding that Washington was merely lodging at Wadsworth House but the Continental Congress only authorized use of the Vassall House as headquarters. I have no source to support it though. Full disclosure: I have been a tour guide at the latter for longer than I care to remember. To clarify, it's the term official that I thought made the difference. There's no doubt Wadsworth was chronologically first. Thanks for asking. I'm not sure how to handle this. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]