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

I was delayed by unexpected visitors over the weekend. I have my notes on a printout version of the article now and all I need to do is find a moment to put them online in a consistent version you understand. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GA review is up for your perusal. Please leave me a note on my talk page in a fresh section if you need to draw my attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've commented on the review again. Congratulations on a job the particularly well done when it comes to the images. Do you know if any of the book sources are on Google Books? It would be nothing new, but it would help the reader who can't access the paper versions of the books. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (taken from the talk page) I'm talking about the same thing, and I'm not sure what's the problem. Neal was saying that Poe was spouting "nonsense" by thinking he was greater than all other poets, but said that he might, after all, produce such a poem to prove he was right. Again, these are Neal's words. Neal wouldn't know a thing about Poe's career because, well, Poe didn't have one at that point. I'm not sure what's so wrong about giving Neal's prediction. Yes, it's POV, but it simply has to be if it's a section on how people responded. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way it was written suggested someone else stated that Neal was right about Poe turning out to be a great poet. The claim of Neal you quoted said that Poe might "make a beautiful and perhaps a magnificent poem" If you meant to say Poe wrote such a poem to prove he was right about American poetry, it needs a rewrite to clarify that. Anyway, while important, it's not a point to stop the nomination on. I've promoted the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you read it wrong the first time and, once it's in your head, it's hard to get it out! I noticed the way you re-wrote it completely altered the literal meaning of the sentence into exactly what you mistakenly took it to mean the first time. With your second edit, you put it back to how it was intended. Thanks. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was really pleased to see the material about the rule of three sent to the Three Bears artilce and I noticed you commented. Please, feel free to add to the article if you wish. I don't think of it as "mine" so additions are truly welcome! ItsLassieTime (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the correction to the Edgar Allan Poe article where I had added the Peter Ackroyd book

• Ackroyd, Peter (2008). Poe: a life cut short. London: Chatto & Windus. ISBN 9780701169886.

on Poe to references. You backed this out. So I added it to "Further reading". Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it definitely shouldn't be listed as a reference if it's not referenced. I've also removed it from further reading. I just don't think Wikipedia should be promoting books that were written with no intent to be accurate. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll have to take your word for it, I guess. Peter Ackroyd is a well-known biographer. The Times of London reviewed it and didn't say it was inaccurate, though.From The Times, February 1, 2008 "Poe: A Life Cut Short by Peter Ackroyd; Reviewed by Matthew Dennison" And the Christian Science Monitor reviewed it and didn't mention any inaccuracies as well."Book Reviews: Poe: A Life Cut Short. A concise new biography marks the 200th birthday of Edgar Allen Poe." By Heller McAlpin, Christian Science Monitor, January 21, 2009 edition. Having read these reviews and skimmed the book by Ackroyd last night, I'd ask you to provide scholarly citations or reviews showing the inaccuracies. Otherwise we must put this matter up for arbitration. Just for my edification, can you cite some literary reviews which demonstrate the inaccuracy of this book by Ackroyd on Poe? It's still seemingly a read book. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, friend. I'm just trying to figure things out. Please accept my apologies as a fellow editor and Wikipedian for anything untoward. I am not a Poe scholar, so I can't make any real judgments. The book by Ackroyd is being read and I saw it last night and read it, with a little skimming. It seemed to be useful in its own fashion. If it's an abomination of untrue facts about Poe, then it's a wrap. I don't want to get into any hassle about it or get you into one. I just asked a fellow editor who I have interacted with well before his advice on the matter. I did look up a couple of reviews and didn't find that they said it was inaccurate. The Times of London and The Christian Science Monitor to wit. So I didn't know what to make of your remarks on the face of it. I knew you meant it in good faith but I am on wobbly ground representing any scholarship on Poe. A priori, I respect your opinion, but I just wanted to see if there was any room in the judgment since people are reading Ackroyd's book on Poe. It's been published by a well-respected publisher. So I'm baffled, friend. Let's work it out. I'll likely defer to you if you are assured it's an inferior work. But I can't prove it has glaring inaccuracies in it, to myself, admitted I'm on thin scholarly ice. So, in summary, what is the basis for the inaccuracies? Has it been reported in the scholarly literature? Let's take the middle ground. Surely we have other work to do, like editing WP articles and enhancing the community grand opus. You said nothing impolite to me and I hope I didn't to you. If so, I apologize. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind note. We will work this out quite amicably. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:American child writers definition says "People of the United States who were published authors when they were children or teenagers." Based on the Edgar Allan Poe article, his first publication was at the age of 18: "Poe's publishing career began humbly, with an anonymous collection of poems, Tamerlane and Other Poems (1827), credited only to 'a Bostonian'." Goustien (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long time no see. :) It looks really great - you may need to format the few citations you've gotten from the internet, and see if there are any relevantish pictures that could be added, if possible. I wonder if there's any old illustrated editions of the book? --Malkinann (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in something of a similar bind with my own pictureless wonder, Torikaebaya Monogatari. Perhaps you could find an illustration of the cave scene from Robinson Crusoe that inspired a similar scene in Arthur Gordon Pym and put that in the sources section? The web references I was thinking of that need more formatting are the "Symzonia" and "Symmes introduction" references. The link labelled "Yann Martel on tigers, cannibals and Edgar Allan Poe - News - Canongate Home" is dead. Another source which I dare to suggest is Journey to the End of the Page, which discusses some of the commentaries on the work. What are your feelings on {{cite web}}?--Malkinann (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you've seen it yet, but someone's reviewing the article and has some concerns. --Malkinann (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm up for that. :) --Malkinann (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the length of the plot summary, I have read the complaint that already it's too long. Perhaps it is. That's not for me to decide. However, I feel at least some of my additions were necessary. For example, the analysis (I'm not sure if this is the verbatim heading) section includes a discussion of the ship of corpses, yet until last night the plot summary had no reference to it. I felt this might be confusing to readers not already familiar with the work. Moreover, Pym is a nutritiously convoluted and meandering work. I think an accurate plot summary should reflect this. [[[User:LawyerGreg|LawyerGreg]] (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Your remarks about the need to update the body of the page is true but I simply do not have the time to do it at this point. I figured the small edits to include information in the infobox is a better choice than doing nothing. Thanks again for the support. Saltcreek (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded here. It was a pleasant surprise to see that you were reviewing GAs. I made some updates and some fixes. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you have an incredibly sincere desire to improve this article, but with respect to the Arabic connection (which is what I mainly follow), you show an unfortunate tendency to split this material into isolated disconnected fragments widely separated in the article. There needs to be one central location for the main discussion of the Arabic/Qur'anic connection, and this location cannot usefully be the first paragraph at the top of the article... AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary, these are not alternative versions of the name of the poem, but alternative transcriptions of the Arabic word, so that reasoning does not apply (the variant transciptions of the Arabic word should be grouped together with the rest of the discussion about the Arabic/Qur'anic sources). And look at the edit diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Aaraaf&diff=prev&oldid=282890617 -- you had "Al-A`raaf" in two places, both inside and outside the parentheses. AnonMoos (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, transliterations can be italicized, but I'm not sure that there's any great need for that here. AnonMoos (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry about that, I do try to leave edit summaries but I just keep forgetting. Sorry again if I caused any undue hassle, I promise I'll remember in future. Great username by the way. --Heslopian (talk) 02:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that you liked them! That book has illustrations for a couple of more stories. I have just uploaded the ones that we do not have any images on commons. As I find more time, I'll upload the others as well. We also have this for The Gold-Bug, but I've not put it on the article because I'm affraid it will be overcrowded with so many images. Perhaps you should have a look at that. One last thing: I also have an image for "The Assignation" which we do not have an article yet. Maybe you would like to write that one too (the more you write, the more I can translate ). İyivikiler... ho? ni! 09:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't include the Byam Shaw illustration. It is undramatic and poorly conceived. The suspended bug is barely visible. He should have de-emphasized all of the vegetation and emphasized the human figures.Lestrade (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

It would be one thing to have an alias section, but the article is clearer if he is refered to by name. I didn't say that the nickname cannot be refered to, but that he should be refered to by his name. As the article was the only way several college students studying Emerson knew that the Concord Sage refered to Emerson was an educated guess based on context. Emerson acheives both clarity and precision, and does not deny the possibility of his nickname being mentioned. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're just reading into what I've said some dogmatic statement that the nickname cannot and must not be mentioned. I just said he shouldn't be refered to by his nickname because people who are not Emerson fans wouldn't automatically know who the nickname refers to. I never said that his nickname cannot be mentioned. Wikipedia isn't just visited by Emerson fans. I am just elaborating my original argument. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common within a fanbase is not common for the general public. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. When I read the New Yorker article, I was surprised, because I had never heard the different figures. As an English teacher, I have taught the inaccurate figures several times, and I wanted to make sure the newer figure (or, at least, the controversy) was a part of the Wikipedia page.waxwing slain (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be suspicious. Lepore's article had more than a couple incorrect "facts." Personally, I'm skeptical until I see Whalen's publication firsthand. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightdreary has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Midnightdreary's day! For your outstanding work with Poe-related articles, enjoy being the Star of the day, Midnightdreary! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 ~~~~~ If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

Hey, Midnightdreary, I hope your schedule is thinning out nicely. The PR is underway here if you want to keep your eye on it; I've asked several people to take part, so feel free to do the same, especially if you know some poetry-minded individuals. Finetooth has agreed to do a copyedit, but the more eyes the better. María (habla conmigo) 20:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember when I said I hate dealing with images? I hate dealing with images. I found reliable source material for the Irving painting, but while replacing the Megis image, I came across this portrait of Holmes at the National Library of Medicine's Images from the History of Medicine project. It's a better version of the portrait we used to have in the infobox. Even though there is no artist/date, and I haven't been able to find it in any publications as of yet, do you think it would be safe to upload? I would really prefer to have a photograph in the lead, so if this doesn't work out, I may just scan one from Hoyt circa 1865. Looks like we're getting fairly close! María (habla conmigo) 19:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any concern about licensing, it's safest to put it in the Commons gallery, but not place it in the article. I'm okay with not using a photograph, though I see your point. How about File:OWHolmes1891.jpg or File:Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr 1859.png? I can crop out the frame on that one. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I'm not a big fan of the quotebox (or quoteboxes) in general. But, no big deal; if it can survive FAC, I won't mention it again. ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1859 one would work nicely, thanks. As for the quotebox, I'm really torn; I love how they turned out at Emily Dickinson, but Holmes's poetry is just too... much. Too long, too complicated. Ssilvers was correct in that there's not enough poetry in the article at the moment, however, so I'm not sure what to do. Will think on it over the weekend... María (habla conmigo) 01:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you'll reconsider bailing on the STC main article. Cheers, Easchiff (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it, but it would be such a shame if I hindered the work going on over there. It seems that I'm incapable of doing anything worthwhile on Wiki - or so I hear. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pondering, Midnightdreary. I, for one, have been noticing and admiring your work for some time, though we don't usually work on the same articles. I've been enjoying dipping into STC's conversation poems; it takes me back to my student days, when I was very keen on the Romantic poets. Best, Easchiff (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really apreciate you helping me out. could you possibly give me a link to the message things. those rectangular things that say what your about and tell you if your going to be out or not. thanks!ray ray (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice message on my talk page. Check out the FAC for H.M.S. Pinafore if you have a chance: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/H.M.S._Pinafore/archive1. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this question: At that time, Jefferson Medical College was part of Jefferson College, right?--GrapedApe (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Jefferson Medical College. I do know that Washington & Jefferson College has never had a medical college; it's always been liberal arts. It shouldn't matter either way; LeMoyne was not an alumnus of W&J or its previous incarnations so he shouldn't be part of the W&J alumni category. The W&J people category seems more appropriate because he bailed the school out of near-bankruptcy at one point. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! It was great working with you. :) Next stop: TFA. María (habla conmigo) 13:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, thanks for the kind words. The article really is quite excellent. If you ever need help in the future, you know where to find me. María (habla conmigo) 22:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for your well-deserved success with Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.. It was a pleasure to read. Finetooth (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if I could get you opinion on something Talk:Manchester mayoral election, 2009 (New Hampshire) is where the discussion is. So there is an disagreement between me and another editor on what the page should be I believe it should be the one posted above and he thinks it should be Manchester, New Hampshire mayoral election, 2009 just wondering if you could contribute thanks Gang14 (talk) 22:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed Mark Twain House for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey midnight, I like your pages, I have similar things happening here as the Poe Toaster. The wiki gurus wanna delete the article Norwich Visitor. I can't blame them, as I'm new to the wikiverse,but could you pop over to it and give me some advice. Thanks in advance. Cthistory (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I nominated Holmes's article at WP:TFAR; although I've been burned by the page's subjective favoritism in the past, I think Holmes has a good chance at six points. However, did you know that Holmes shares a birthday with Michael Jackson (also an FA)? Hmm. María (habla conmigo) 02:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boo! Hasn't Jackson already been on the front page recently? :) I think there's a good chance for Holmes - I'll be rooting for him. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Margaret Fuller might have a chance at TFA in the near future; see [1]. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you were around more today than I was. :) Nevertheless, I hope the festivities were eventful! Longfellow should definitely be next, although it looks like it's fairly close already. Whenever you're ready for the push, you know where to find me. Enjoy the rest of your weekend, María (habla conmigo) 01:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be so kind as to explain to me why you find it appropriate to remove the references I've been adding? The vague explanation that they are "already referenced" doesn't make sense -- what on earth is wrong with a further reference? It would have been courteous to at least post onto my talk page to say why you're doing it. Oh and saying you're doing it because there's a spelling mistake is just silly. It would have been less work to insert the single space! This is a fine way to treat a novice contributor. Drake-Halleck (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary. "Incorrect reference"!! You mean, a reference with a trivial typo which you could and should have corrected yourself. I have the book right by me, how dare you call it an incorrect reference? Drake-Halleck (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Midnightdreary.

My name is Jon, I'm from Denmark and I'm sort of new to both the use of the "Talk" pages of Wikipedia and the serious study of Edgar Allan Poe's work. So please bear with me. It appears you are experienced in the ways of both, however. I'd be glad to discuss the works of Poe, and maybe you could give me advice about which short stories to read/analyze. I've read some but far from all of Poe's short stories. The other day I read a story in Danish (my native language) so I don't know the exact original title, but it could be translated into something like "About my literary life and work" - a comedic short story supposedly written by a man called Psidusius Plump, the editor of the maganize "Ochinox Overdose" - a somewhat strange title for a maganize. Does this sound familiar? Anyway, as mentioned I haven't found out the short story's original title (but it would be possible with some effort). It appears this isn't one of top Poe stories, but I like it very much. Although I'm not a journalist or writer living in 19th century America, it appears to me this is hinting to the American world of journalism of Poe's own time - making it appear stupid, unfair and corrupt. What do you think?

By the way, does your username "Midnightdreary" hint to something related to Poe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynn144 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've found out that the original title of the short story mentioned in my earlier entry, is "The Literary Life of Thingum Bob, Esq.". After reading the short story in English I discovered that some of the names, including that of the narrator, have been changed in the Danish translation. In the later "Thingum Bob" is called "Psidusius Plump". Probably because a Danish reader (who possibly doesn't know English very well) would better understand the later name as an "odd name". A name that isn't a real name. Anyway that's my guess why the translater has changed the names in the translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robynn144 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I see that you reverted my edit on the main Poe page concerning the influence of Hoffmann on Poe. Considering the amount of time you've spent on maintaining the Poe articles, I don't blame you for being critical, and I won't press you to put the information and citation back in. However, you may be interested in the work, which can be viewed in full though Google Books here: http://books.google.com/books?id=dLYHAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA12&dq=hoffmann+poe&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Thanks.

Thanks for your civil response here. My experience on Wikipedia has been that older sources (even over 50 years) are frequently challenged or entirely thrown out by other editors on this project. In many (not all) cases I tend to agree. The hypothetical argument is this: If Hoffman was such a strong influence, more writers would be writing about it, and certainly within the past couple decades. What I would recommend (if you want advice) finding more specific examples of Hoffman's influence, particularly on individual Poe works. "William Wilson," for example, may have a more acknowledged connection to a specific work from Hoffman, rather than offering a general blanket statement like "Poe was influenced by Hoffman." What do you think? --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just thought you should know - I've started working on Ann's article. She also now has an author page on Wikisource - Josette (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was really glad to see someone else helping me with the Young Goodman Brown article. I thought you were great, until I saw on your user page that you are a steelers and Ravens fan. Being a diehard Colts fan, I immediately changed my mind! Not really, just kidding. Keep up the great work! The Dark Knight ★ of Wikipedia 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty as charged - likely the oddest combination in all NFL fandom! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be worse if I liked the Patriots...but I don't. However, I was born in Boston, and am now living in Indiana. Does that obligate me to be a Pats fan? I hope not... The Dark Knight ★ of Wikipedia 22:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Is there any chance you might consider re-rating For want of a nail above start class? It's really getting to be a good article... and might be good for a DYK - which I don't know how to do. Thanks in advance! Timmccloud (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Hawthorne has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, they are the quotations, but take your point that they need to be formulated correctly. Thanks for the tips.EdFalzer (talk)00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, before I added the list back I consulted with a an experienced Wikipedia contributor and reviewer and his thoughts on Emerson were: It is customary, I think, to list places, institutions, etc. which have been named in a person's honor in a "legacy" section. I see nothing wrong with this, and disagree that such a list would not be "encyclopedic"... particularly if the subjects listed had Wikipedia articles of their own." Of course, consensus should be reached. If the section is really not wanted then it should not remain --Rschwalb —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I'm sorry I'm non considered "an experienced Wikipedia contributor" in your eyes. I don't believe I said anything about being "encyclopedic". Let's see where the discussion rolls. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have attended the University of Massachusetts Lowell. You are welcome to join the WikiProject University of Massachusetts at your own convenience. If you have any questions for me, I will respond as soon as possible. Your participation is appreciated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 19:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i just used cite books there so i could link to the google books of her works, which are in the public domain, change it if you like, but please leave the links (nice work btw) Pohick2 (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree the cite books leaves something to be desired, (but it is convenient pasting google book links) but external links works too - i've been trying to add links to author articles as i see them adds some click thru info Pohick2 (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree entirely, source is much preferred, but in stub land the vast ocean of authors could use some links to their writing, maybe a bot could be devised to copy the links to source. this article is not "start" class - more like a C going to A, are you going to start an FA review soon? Pohick2 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my error. Perhaps I rushed to judgment, but a very short message like that trips my nonsense antennae, I guess a bit too easily. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh... I don't blame you - the person could have been less succinct. It did look a bit cryptic! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Oh well. Good catch on your part. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out WP:LQ. Earlier I had glossed over it. It makes sense now. Scwlong (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikisource:Tamerlane you left a note about "tried to fix formatting:; in my "sand box" at USER:Naaman Brown/Tamerlane I have updated the formatting of the poem (which was the 1829/1845 final version) following an edition of the poem edited by T.O. Mabbott and transcribed the 1827 version from a facsimile of "Tamerlane and Other Poems by a Bostonian". If you please, check it out and feel free to make any edits to Wikisource:Tamerlane. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find this sandbox. I'm sure you did better than I could have but could you send me a direct link? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Naaman_Brown/Tamerlane It was created 16:20, 11 February 2010 so it might not show up search til all the servers get updated or some other technical glitch. I found half-a-dozen typos in my transcript of the original version, I'm never sure I don't need a proofeaders. Naaman Brown (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have correct some errors in transcription of the 1827 version, on my test page. Naaman Brown (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! I say go for it and plop it in. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Left a rambling note on Wikisource Tamerlane talk page. Naaman Brown (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed those internal links was because I thought they were too broad. I wondered why New York City, for example, would apply to him.

Anyway, I will keep my mitts off your corrections!!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the internal links are less about relating to the subject of the article in question and more about the, huh, what's this? factor. For example, an English speaker in New Zealand may not know that little town in Illinois the article refers to, but may want to know more. That's the point of links (and the whole Wikimedia project): wanting to know more. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Excellent idea. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Midnightdreary, how are you? Long time no see. :) Just FYI, someone nominated Margaret Fuller for WP:TFA to celebrate her 200th birthday later this month. I'm glad the article is still in such great shape, but of course it will unfortunately be overrun by jerks if the TFA nom succeeds. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 12:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes... TFA... It was the best of times, it was the worst of times... It's always both an honor and a headache! --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our edits conflicted, without my knowing it was you, so I went ahead with my edit. Removing the promotional links, to my mind, solves the problem. If you want to removed them, I do not object, at least until we determine notability. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings about it but it seems a bit promotional to choose one edition out of countless ones. If you feel comfortable with it this way, I'll acquiesce. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightdreary, I was curious about this edit, a bit from the Thoreau article which you added a "citation needed" tag to where I had noted that diplomas were made on sheepskin vellum. When I removed your tag, you objected. Fair enough. But I see that your edit of 21 November had the net effect of removing the tag. Was this an oversight on your part, or did you change your mind on this subject? I note that someone else has removed the word "presumably" which I had previously used. To my mind it was (and is) safe to make the reference to vellum without citation if one uses the qualifier "presumably." Taking that word away makes the assertion rather less safe. I am still ok with it being citation-free, but am curious to know what your thinking here is. Boxter1977 (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so I didn't actually remove the tag, did I? Another editor did when they added a dubious source. The tag was just not re-added when that inappropriate source was removed. Further, "presumably" is both a violation of weasel words and original research policies (as you, the editor, are the one doing the presuming and are not a reliable third-party source). --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MD, it's not a big deal to me, I was just curious. When I removed the tag, you put it back. I understand why you did that. Then someone put in a citation in the wrong spot, and I thought you showed very incisive and clear thinking to point out that it should be in a different spot: that is, directly after the quote, rather than at the end of the sentence, to clarify that the source was one for the quote itself, rather than for an explanation of it's meaning. What I didn't get was why you didn't then re-ad the tag. Thus the question, has your thinking changed, or was it an oversight? Or perhaps (and fair enough, too, if this is the case) it wasn't worth the bother to you... As for the word "presumably", I think we will have to agree to disagree, but that is by the by. I was really just curious about your thinking on the tag. Boxter1977 (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do any of the adding or removing in this case. Most likely I didn't notice. Don't read into it! I'm not very active these days. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up: I have used your image of Old Main as a "Selected picture" at Portal:Washington & Jefferson College. It's located at Portal:Washington & Jefferson College/Selected picture/1. Thanks for the great picture. I'd love to see any more that you have from Washington & Jefferson College! --GrapedApe (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and added into the article. Cheers! Connormah (talk | contribs) 21:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On July 2, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chiefly About War Matters, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 12:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, Sadads (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more, Sadads (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who can edit The Raven in pop culture and remove a link to Edgar Allen Poe deserves kudos. :) Naaman Brown (talk) 16:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! You can imagine how much that drives me nuts... ;) --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I've reverted you is because I dislike you're smart alleck attitude that you're the only one in control of the Poe articles, not to mention how you link multiple times as if anyone other than you is completely incapacitated and needs links to everything YOU think is important. Wikipedia is, as you said yourself, supposed to establish equality between editors but your general demeanor has shown that you only want the section to appear your way regardless of external thought, and I for one do not appreciate it, and it's a pretty sucky way to welcome someone to Wikipedia. 76.125.207.75 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To establish consensus, I think we should discuss in a more public forum, rather than a user talk page. I've started the discussion at Talk:The Tell-Tale Heart. You do know that I was not the only one to have reverted you, right? Hopefully, the links I offered you to Wikipedia policy were helpful. I didn't meant to come across as smart-alecky; just trying to do the right thing as an experienced Wikipedia editor. One more link as response, either way: please comment on the content, not the editor. Do you think it's helpful to call me a retarded, shitty and deaf/blind/mute? --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightdreary, I'm puzzled how a superfluous comma could be dubious and unsourced, . I assume this was a booboo: [2]? (And I admit, curious as to how it happened! :)) Maedin\^talk 13:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was trying to revert the vandalism edits by User:Kenndyjames. I went back to the version prior to his vandal edits, not realizing you had already reverted all the way back to an August 24 version. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhh, okay. I knew it was an undo of some sort! Sorry for the confusion, :) Maedin\^talk 17:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... All that really matters is that the vandalism is gone. :) --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the comment on the busy work some make for themselves, bibliography is something I've been thinking about a lot. Poe is an excellent example. I had been wondering where the right place is for this sort of thing, especially where the author is very notable; here seems like the right sister site, and the 'list' is a great example. Other authors might have the details in their article. Do you fancy helping me think out loud, with a model for a less well known author, so I'm not messing with featured and high-traffic articles? cygnis insignis 12:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean a listing of the works by the author, or about the author? Either way, I think I'd look at the main article (e.g. the author's article) first. If it's short, keep the bibliography right there. If it's already long enough, create a seperate forked article. I'm generalizing, of course. Which author are you thinking about? --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good question ;-) Works by would be the first thing to split, about being found as the 'main' article's own references. I'm also thinking about how this is handled at the other place, in the author namespace. Wikipedia is ideal for creating verifiable content about works, annotated lists and so on, I linked your bibliography from en.ws for this reason. Forking may not be the way to look at it, the article or list would follow the title. It is worth noting here that bibliography has a shifting or flexible meaning. I suppose a careful outline of the page's scope is given by the lead, as you have done. cygnis insignis 13:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Are you a local? Or do you have a particular interest? upstateNYer 21:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just like dead people! --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please weigh in on Talk:List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes#Inclusion of episode segment links, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure why I would want to be involved with that discussion. Carry on, nonetheless! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you could check my edit ([3]) and see if I cited properly. I'm new here and I'm still learning. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit the Margaret Fuller article ever again. Fuller's formal education included three schools instead of one according to all sources except Wikipedia. I apologize if the addition of this information and my imperfect way of citing sources messed up this featured article. You can delete the information I added and go back to the version that says that Fuller only attended the Groton school. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be dissuaded from editing this one or any other article. You can see that I've gone ahead and formatted the references that you added so there's no problem. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Midnightdreary. Sorry to bother you again. I've been working on the article about the American Renaissance and I'm finding very few sources that include Emerson's Representative Men in the list of "major works" or Hawthorne's The House of the Seven Gables. I did find many sources that say that Emerson's essays Fate and Illusions belonged to the canon but very little about "Representative Men."

Also, the first paragraph favors Mathiessen's very rigid definition of the American Renaissance, especially the very short time period (1850-55) and the list of authors. The canon now includes many authors but especially Margaret Fuller. Can I add her to the list of authors in the first paragraph? What do you think? Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think for any list it is important to have a source. Lists always invite cruft - the idea that people can just keep adding and adding. I don't think I see The House of the Seven Gables elevated to an important work of literature (case in point for the cruft comment?) and I think Emerson's Representative Men is a stretch as well, partly because the crux of the movement seems to be fiction. Though, with that said, I've seen his "The American Scholar" speech listed as a catalyst for the renaissance, if we can find a source that agrees. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a very informative and concise entry on the American Renaissance in the Merriam Webster's encyclopedia of literature [4]. Is Merriam Webster's considered a credible source? It lists Emerson, Thoreau, B. Alcott, Ripley and Fuller, Melville, Whitman and Poe as major writers of the American Renaissance. Mathiessen focuses on Emerson, Thoreau, Melville, Whitman and Poe but M. Fuller has definitely entered the canon.

The thing that is interesting about the Merriam Webster's entry is that it distinguishes between successful writers who dominated the contemporary literary scene (like Longfellow and Holmes) and writers who were recognized as major influences in retrospect (like Poe and Melville who were maligned by contemporary critics and readers).

Another source is The American Renaissance (edited by Harold Bloom ISBN: 0791076768). On page 370 it says "literary trends of the American renaissance period and the pivotal works of such writers as Emerson, Thoreau, Alcott, Hawthorne, Poe, Dickinson, and Whitman."

So my suggestion is to mention Fuller and maybe Dickinson and B. Alcott in the opening paragraph of the article.

I agree with you about Emerson's Representative Men and especially The House of the Seven Gables. Can I go ahead and delete The House of the Seven Gables? The Scarlett Letter is Hawthorne's magnum opus his major contribution to the American Renaissance. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference works like dictionaries are not good sources for this project. I'm not sure about the Bloom book; if he's "editor", it's likely a compilation, which is not a good source either. Don't worry about the lede paragraph too much though; the lede is just a quick intro but the meat of the topic will be in the article below it. That's where Alcott, et al can go. --Midnightdreary (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightdreary, as I ponder weak and weary, the source I submitted is

http://www.archive.org/stream/southernliterar01minogoog#page/n19/mode/1up

page 9 under Illustrations that lists the "editors" of the Southern Literary Messenger, written by one of the editors, Benjamin Blake Minor, L.LD.

The list of editors and publishers is naturally of importance when delving into the history of a newspaper. However, there is a link that goes to a POE society that lists more editors and in detail. Which is the better of the two I do not know but all editors, IF known and has a source, should be included in the information. Too, the Southern Literary Messenger is not about only Edgar Allan Poe just as it is not so much about Matthew Fontaine Maury who was also an editor and changed US Naval history with his articles. What I have herewith written is mere "food for thought" to better the article on the newspaper and I have given my source. If anyone can produce better information and sources on the article, then I am all for that.

With all due respect to you, I am, William Maury Morris II (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why I'm getting such a lengthy and somewhat accusatory message here - I can't find where I said the article should only focus on Poe, which you seem to allege... My only concern is the source, which is clearly not a third-person source (please see relevant policy on reliable sources). The information you added is still there, though I took the liberty of adding some proper formatting. If you want to argue the relevance of a list of editors, I ask two questions: (1) Why doesn't the article on The New York Times have a complete list of editors? (2) Why isn't it formatted into a prose discussion of the magazine's history? --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to offend you personally in any way. On the contrary, I appreciate fellow workers. What I wrote was not an accusation. I regret any misunderstanding. Your formatting looks excellent. I mentioned Poe because there was much about him including two external links that were removed because they were dead links. But the SLM was beginning to look like a POE article including the image on a Poe article. You mentioned something about my "source being confusing" so I simply supplied that source. It's that simple. Nothing was intended to offend anyone. We build together. My point about Editors remains my personal viewpoint. You ask me about another magazine with questions a and b. I reply that I do not know why that magazine is formatted the way that it is and I have not seen it. Perhaps if I knew the editors of that magazine I would include them. They are, afterall, part of a magazine's history. I, like other workers, try to better articles and I meant no offense nor harm in any manner towards you nor any other fellow workers. "We build together". Still, please accept my sincere apology for any misunderstanding due to my poor writing skills. Too, I wish you and all other workers a Happy New Year. May we strive, in peace, to build a better and better wikipedia and wikisource together. Kindest regards, William Maury Morris II (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not going to look at the blue links I provided? Hrumph. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Since you've asked I will reply that I looked at both the "Midnightdreary" User page and your "talk" page which are both blue links. Too, I looked at your "contributions" and your "edits" and I saw a trouble maker using profanities. I will now let you know that I did look at the links you provided and will state that, for me, The New York Times is an excellent article that is properly formatted and shows many sections. The same can be done with The Southern Literary Messenger if someone wanted to take the time to do it and knew the proper way to format it as opposed to "prose" and we do (I suppose) have a lot of editors. I myself also like Poe and years ago had a very large website about him. I once lived in Richmond, Virginia for several years and I visited the Poe Museum a few times but it has been changed now. I went there too when it was under renovation within. Articles were found beneath the floor boards including old coins. When one goes upstairs and turns to the right there was a room painted bright Chinese Red with a black stuffed raven on a pedistal in the center of that room. On the wall was Poe's poem of the Raven and illustrations that were added. Now I figure this is too much writing here but you asked and I decided to go beyond a short answer because I know you can delete this entire text. Poe also was an editor on Matthew Fontaine Maury's articles on bettering the U. S. Navy -- articles that Poe approved of. Any more questions? <smile> Happy New Year and don't let that fellow destroying articles make you feel too weary Midnightdreary. Hang in there and you may yet get another barnstar -- but have you a barn? ;0) Barnstars are all over Virginia. They were used to help hold the walls intact and were threaded on the ends. The barn star itself was a "nut" that screwed onto the threaded ends of the metal rods for support. (not proofread and not needed to be) Kindest regards, William Maury Morris II (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has clearly gone outside the realm of improving articles; I didn't mean to engage further than that and most of this is just confusing me. I'll kindly end this "conversation" now. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was a mistake - I meant to check The Fall of the House of Usher & add there if it hadn't been & ended up in the wrong article. Sorry about that. Very nice work, btw, on the Poe pages. It's nice to see at least some of the American short stories in good shape. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; I assumed it was just an error and nothing malicious. And thanks for the kind words on Poe pages. Hmm... if you're looking for a project, I'm hoping to find a collaborator to bring Nathaniel Hawthorne back up to GA status (if not FA). --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might be interested, though I'm trying to stay away from biographies for a while. I'm trying to clean "Young Goodman Brown" at the moment, and have had The Scarlet Letter watched for ages but haven't had the courage to work on it. I'll add Hawthorne's bio to my watchlist and have a look at it. Certainly, in my view, it's better for the important author bios to be at GA or FA, but getting them there is a bear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck! I took The Scarlet Letter off my watchlist years ago because I couldn't handle all the vandalism. Let me know about the Hawthorne article; it's in fairly good shape now (at least, the biographical section) but needs help mostly in the sections on writing, style, and response. It was removed as a GA because of that, I believe. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The biography is in good shape and the criticism shouldn't take too much work, so yes, I think I might be interested. I'm traveling at the moment and about to be snowed in for the next day or two, but will see what I have for books on Hawthorne when I get home - or order some from the library. I'll let you know (or you'll see me working on the article .... ) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Longfellows poetical works is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longfellows poetical works until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TFD (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are certain of this? I think it likely that it got muddled somewhere, there is a strong connection between Ingram and the Poes: "Marie Louise Shew Houghton, who had nursed Virginia Poe during her last sickness at Fordham and had watched over Poe as he suffered a long and violent attack after Virginia's death.—[5]", had sent much of the material that Ingram was using to rehabilitate Poe's reputation - including Viginia's letters. Both of these people seem pretty important to the backlash against Griswold's characterisation, but the story of this is missing here. His efforts were quickly surpassed by American scholars, which he was not, but it seems the facts concerning Poe were initially consolidated by him.

I've also noted a missing fact from Ingram's The Raven; with literary and historical commentary at Talk:The Raven#Pike, and there is more that could get a mention in that same work.

Is it okay to prod you about these things as they come up? I figure you have a big investment and access to refs already in the article. cygnis insignis 23:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your first question, the letter with Ingram as the recipient was definitely suspicious. Poe wrote it to George W. Eveleth in 1848. As I recall, Shew isn't considered credible, nor Ingram for that matter, which may be why they're not well reflected here. Perhaps it's worth remedying. As always, good sources make for good additions. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Miller's article 'credible'? It contains many things that support what I noted as "important", especially regarding Ingram: establishing facts later swiped by american scholars, popularizing his works with his editions, receiving encouragement and papers from surviving friends, and the "story" of his library.

Isadore ... Well! you have heard of it now :-) Do none of your sources mention it, or do they contradict what Ingram noted as part of the 'Genesis' of the poem? cygnis insignis 00:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What "Miller article" do you mean? I'm not sure I know what your first paragraph about refers to. As for "Isadore", I don't recall ever coming across it. Then again, I haven't specifically looked for it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked in the quote, John Henry Ingram: Editor, Biographer, and Collector of Poe Materials by John Carl Miller, I think it worth reading. Isadore is also linked to en.ws, and has Ingram's note linked from it. I wonder if you might skim the indices of some later refs to see if any of this is mentioned, sometime anyway. cygnis insignis 00:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are working on the Joaquin Miller article... good work! I find it strange that there is not one mention of Ina Coolbrith there, but Miller looms large in her bio. Quite unequal, don't you think? Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting there! The problem with Miller (besides being an obvious pathological liar) is that there are no sources from the past fifty years so it's not easy to find stuff. --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of his attraction may have been his larger-than-life lying ability. Foisting his half-breed daughter on Ina Coolbrith was a loser maneuver, I think. He's a quirk, for sure. If you want a modern photo or two, I live minutes from Joaquin Miller Park in Oakland, the late-life home he purposely misspelled as "The Hights" out of sheer cussedness. Binksternet (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised his larger-than-life lying ability isn't still drawing people to him today. Granted his poetry is rather banal but I'm finding his life story fascinating. If you ever make it by The Hights, feel free to grab a photo or two - I'm curious myself about its current condition. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped back "References" for "Footnotes" in the section heading over at "Some Words with a Mummy". I hope it doesn't seem arbitrary, but articles on other Poe works use "References". Might as well keep it standard? --Midnightdreary (talk) 03:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I understand about consistency!--Npd2983 (talk) 03:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the "e-mail this user link" - where is it, please? 36hourblock (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go to a user page and you should see a link "E-mail this user" on the tool box to the left. You can always just leave a message on the user's discussion page as well. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not there; not that I can see. Now I'm curious to find it. 36hourblock (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at it on mine, no problem. It could be because the "toolbox" is auto-closed and you might have to click it to expand the menu. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I guess is that my Username is under some kind of restriction, or my personal information is not setup to engage in e-mail exchanges. Here's what I show at "Toolbox"

Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
User contributions
Logs
Upload file
Special pages

36hourblock (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need refereces this article.--Botedance (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article has already passed the Good Article criteria. You'll have to be more specific about your concerns. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:W&Jstatues.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, sorry, I use an external editor and it transposes " as '' sometimes. Great job on the Poe articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for adding the back up source for that info. I have a personal/professional issue with the work of John E. Walsh so I get skeptical! --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, I actually had a personal/professional "encounter" with him back in 1995 (unrelated to this of course) that made me lose any respect for him as well (and anyone who fosters the victim mentality), I was actually surprised that he was the author, but it did provide a good quote that is easily checked. It seemed disingenuous that he listed Poe as a "coauthor" on that piece, but not surprising.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Midnightdreary! I want to post something about the poem "The Road Not Taken." I saw your "The Raven" article and found Featured article criteria, which suggests using "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate." I can find plenty of analysis on the "The Road Not Taken" poem, but I would rather base my post on the more respected books/writings on the topic. I haven't studied poetry formally so I don't know what these might be. I'm hoping that you can get me started and list a few of the "the relevant literature" and "high-quality reliable sources" in the poetry field that might discuss "The Road Not Taken." Thanks! Cody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codydakin (talk • contribs) 20:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely a worthwhile undertaking, so I wish you luck with it! I'm not sure how helpful I will be, as Frost is just outside my particular scholarly interest (I don't delve outside the 19th century). Still, the best place to start is whatever books are readily available on Frost. From there, you might find other analyses in specialized academic journals. Avoid textbooks. Best of luck! --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. I'll check the Robert Frost article to see whats used there. Cody — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codydakin (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note to let the main editors of Nathaniel Parker Willis know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 23, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 23, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Nathaniel Parker Willis (1806–1867) was an American author, poet and editor who worked with several notable American writers including Edgar Allan Poe and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. He became the highest-paid magazine writer of his day. For a time, he was the employer of former slave and future writer Harriet Jacobs. Born in Portland, Maine, Willis came from a family of publishers. He developed an interest in literature while attending Yale College and began publishing poetry. After graduation, he worked as an overseas correspondent for the New York Mirror. He eventually moved to New York and began to build his literary reputation. In 1846, he started his own publication, the Home Journal, which was eventually renamed Town & Country. Shortly after, Willis moved to a home on the Hudson River where he lived a semi-retired life until his death in 1867. Willis embedded his own personality into his writing and addressed his readers personally, specifically in his travel writings, so that his reputation was built in part because of his character. Critics, including his sister in her novel Ruth Hall, occasionally described him as being effeminate and Europeanized. Despite his intense popularity for a time, at his death Willis was nearly forgotten. (more...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I made two small comments at WP:ERRORS. If you're around, I'd be grateful for your views. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]

On 10 January 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Story of a Bad Boy, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Thomas Bailey Aldrich's The Story of a Bad Boy (pictured) inspired a genre of "bad boy" literature that included Mark Twain's The Adventures of Tom Sawyer? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Story of a Bad Boy.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 10 January 2012 (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 WP:UNDUE argument. However, I must ask that you refrain from making this personal. Your most recent edit summary bordered on a personal attack. Please don't make this a "me vs. you" kind of situation; I'm only concerned about the integrity of a high profile, recognized 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]

For all your work on Poe's works, we really love you, Midnightdreary.

DONT NEED TO BE ALONE, NO NEED TO BE ALONE.

ITS REAL LOVE, ITS REAL. YES ITS REAL LOVE, ITS REAL. (J. Lennon)

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

Hi Midnight, I was looking at the Poetry Project's archives and I saw that you were one of the main contributors. It's gone into hibernation in the last few years. I wondered if you could give me some of the background on its history - if it all fizzled out or there was some big contretemps. I know that some main poetry contributors were banned at one point. I've been around for a few years but I don't really know how projects run; are they usually led by admins? The Wikipedia landscape seems to have changed so much over the last five years. Any thoughts appreciated. Span (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Span (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]

Drmies (talk) 02:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

---

Message delivered by Dominic at 08:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.[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 Ireland. Poe's one-time fiancée, Sarah Helen Whitman, wrote in 1860 that Edgar's great-grandfather John Poe had been born in Ireland and was the son-in-law of Admiral John MacBride MP. Some forty years later Edgar's Baltimore cousin John P. Poe, Sr. was quoted as saying that John Poe had actually been Admiral MacBride's brother-in-law. From this information the genealogist Sir Edmund Thomas Bewley in his book on the Poe families of Ireland felt it likely that Edgar Allen Poe's grandfather David Poe Sr. had been born in Dring, Kildallon near the County Cavan town of Killeshandra in the 1740s to John Poe and his wife Jane MacBride, sister of Admiral MacBride, before the entire family emigrated to America in 1749 or 1750.

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 featured articles. Stylistically, there are a lot of weasel words. Still, I haven't disputed the information - only the sources, which must be reliable. If we were to consider at the content, we have to ask if we should look into his family history on every side of the family and, following the policy on 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]

	Great American Wiknic - Boston
	The Second Annual Great American Wiknic will be an opportunity for Wikipedians across the Greater Boston area to meet for an afternoon of Food, Fun, and Fellowship. Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about upcoming activities, and just enjoy a day at the park!
	Saturday, June 23 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM Boston Common	Food Fun Fellowship
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/Wiknic/2012!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Meetup/Boston at 14:40, 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]

U.S. Ada Lovelace Day 2012 edit-a-thon, Harvard University - You are invited!

Now in its fourth year, Ada Lovelace Day is an international celebration of women in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM), and related fields. Participants from around New England are invited to gather together at Harvard Law School to edit and create Wikipedia entries on women who have made significant contributions to the STEM fields. Register to attend or sign up to participate remotely - visit this page to do either. 00:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I have been reading through your articles, and I am very impressed with the level of quality you strive to maintain. Keep it up! SchizophrenicDingo (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks so much for this! I do admit I am not entirely tireless, and I have been contributing much less often as a content creator and, instead, have become more of a vandal blocker (far less glamorous, I know). Thank you all the same! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	After you told me that you chiefly serve as a vandal blocker, I looked into it a little, and decided that you were worthy of this barnstar. Enjoy,you deserve it. :) SchizophrenicDingo (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who is listed as a participant for WikiProject Poetry, I hope you will be interested to learn of an attempt to revive the WP and alongside this the creation of task force to improve coverage of The Canterbury Tales. We are currently looking for participants to help set up the basics. Please get involved if you can, and we can hopefully revive this important project within Wikipedia! Many thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]