June ChristyEdit

I'm probably going to do the June Christy/Stan Kenton Duet CD next. One slight problem though with the 'Release Date' of 5 May 1955 which you might have been the one to have provided in the first place. I have the original recordings taking place over 3 dates: 7 May, 9 May and 19 May 1955. Thus the above 'Release Date' would seem to be in error.

My Capitol CD copy seems to have been released in 1993. It had 11 tracks on it. However when the album was re-released in 2001 an extra 2 tracks Body and Soul and You're Blasé (from the 19 May session) were added.

Any comments? Thumper2 (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not the one who provided the May 5, 1955, recording date. That was Shamrox. I have a copy of the original LP, but that is of no help in verifying the date. But, after searching for maybe a half-hour and getting very confused, I think I have finally found what are likely to be the true recording dates. The Juergen Woelfer June Christy discography on the Misty Miss Christy website, which you reminded me of, had the answers after all (somehow I didn't see them at first), and it shows the following:
May 7: "Prelude to a Kiss" (added to 1993 CD), "We Kiss in a Shadow", "Thanks for You" (added to 1993 CD), "Lonely Woman"
May 9: "Come to the Party", "Baby, Baby All the Time", "Angel Eyes", and "Just the Way I Am"
May 19: "How Long Has This Been Going On" (added to 1993 CD), "Ev’ry Time We Say Goodbye", "Body and Soul" (added to 2001 CD), "You're Blasé" (added to 2001 CD), and "You're Mine, You!"
Now that I've taken the trouble to type these titles in here, you can just use the names as I've typed them if you want to save yourself some trouble. Nothing like copy and paste. :^)
Now that I think of it, the dates that you say you have probably come from the same place. Duh. Though I don't think that Woelfer's discography is completely error-free, I think it's safe to use those dates. If Shamrox objects (but I doubt that he will), you can just cite the discography as a source, which looks generally like it was carefully prepared. Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC).
Thanks VERY MUCH for the help with the Four Freshmen album. I'm going to have a long rest away from Wikipedia for some time. Don't know when (or ever) I'll come back. It's just too much hassle.Thumper2 (talk) 10:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year!Edit

Thank you, Alan! And a very happy New Year to you as well!

I think you've done a great job on that article! It really is an FA now. Which poem is next? Amandajm (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Amanda! You did great on the parts you edited, too. This was truly a collaborative effort. If you look at the edit counts (though I don't think that just going by those numbers is a really accurate way of judging contributions, as so many do), we have made more edits to this article than anyone else over all the years it has existed.
Which poem is next? Well, it may be a while before I get to any other poem. If you want to do one, maybe I'll go over what you've done and offer feedback. Just as you are fanatically devoted to Leonardo (and nothing wrong with that; he's most worthy of the attention), my main interest, actually, is the prose of the Romantic period in England, most particularly that of William Hazlitt. My major effort over the past year has been the article on his Characters of Shakespear's Plays, and I'm still tinkering with it. To me, Hazlitt is as important as Leonardo is to you. In theory, I'd love to do it all, the poetry, the prose, everything. But in practice, there is only so much time. I can't believe I'm still up now, but I've had a lot of time off for the holidays. Soon, it's back to my day job on a regular schedule.
Keep up your own good work (I see you've begun a really interesting article on Leonardo, the controversies about him, etc.), and I hope we can still be in touch from time to time. It's been a pleasure working with you. --Alan W (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hazlitt and BrowneEdit

Thanks for your kind message. And yes, definitely re-read Hydriotaphia — especially the last chapter. The best prose in English, in my view. Best, Hydriotaphia (talk) 03:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my screw-up about "through"! Good to learn about Wikipedia stylistics. Best, Hydriotaphia (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comments on SAQEdit

Hi Alan,

I just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for chipping in on the SAQ article. Quite apart from the general dearth of editors on the Shakespeare related articles, this fairly controversial article in particular needs all the level-headed editors contributing that can be found. If for no other reason then because too few editors makes it impossible to determine consensus (it's just the same small group of people going back and forth on the same issues indefinitely); but also, as Tom mentioned, it's critical to get some fresh eyes on it from time to time. Anyways, I don't mean to guilt you into spending too much time on it—I'm sure the demands on your time are at least as bad as anyone else's—I just wanted to send you a note of thanks for taking a look and to emphasize that, the sheer volume of Talk page traffic notwithstanding, the article is in dire need of more editors to make further progress should your interests and available WikiTime allow. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I must say our collaboration on Characters… was among the more pleasant ones, and I've long regretted that I had not more time to devote to it, or more relevant expertise for that matter. You've done a splendid job on it, I must say! It was, however, a shock to discover Ottava was gone from the project. I didn't even find out until I started working on Edmond Malone and was in desperate need of his familiarity with, and sources on, Samuel Johnson. A very very sad outcome, and, I must say, quite inexplicable. I know Ottava could be a bit ornery at times, but as our collaboration eminently exemplified, he was also knowledgable, polite, humble (when called for), and with a capacity for reading and work which us mere mortals can hardly hope to match. If the alleged cooperation problems were accurate, I think I would have gladly suffered the occasional moody day in the sure hope of joyous collaborations such as ours.
I understand perfectly the reluctance to knowingly embroiling oneself in a controversial quagmire such as almost anything related to the Authorship issue, and in fact I share your reluctance. I involve myself there mainly because after years of suffering drive-by edits by editors of… questionable rationality, and certainly no comprehension of Wikipedia (but also, it must be admitted, some honest exceptions; none mentioned, none too offended ;D), Tom Reedy and Nishidani finally took on the herculean task of bringing it up to a standard we can be proud of; and the chance to have a stable and high-quality article on the subject is beguiling. I am also quite sympathetic to a priority of claims, when limited time is a given, and staying within one's fields of interest. It only happens that my interest, being Shakespeare in general, is not fixed in a specific time-period, while yours by definition is. But I would, for instance, much prefer to spend my time on biographical and historical topics, and I break out in hives when attempting to deal with literary criticism (which is why Hazlitt is an entirely blank page to me).
Incidentally, this does suggest a point of congruence: my Shakespearean interest has spilled over into the great biographers of Shakespeare, and the 18th century provides us with several of that description. As previously mentioned, my current project (and it is a long-term project, so no worries on that count) is the article on Edmond Malone. My readings on him have quite naturally led me to James Boswell and Samuel Johnson, George Steevens (I would, for instance, also quite like to put together articles on the three great variorum editions of Shakespeare from this period: Johnson, Johnson—Steevens, and Malone's), and even Joshua Reynolds; and, as I'm sure you're already familiar with, there are many more in this period whose paths intersect Malone's by way of Shakespeare or otherwise. A likely future project, springing directly from Malone, is the Ireland Shakespeare forgeries article, and possibly also on the two Irelands themselves. If you should have an interest in a collaboration, of the kind that of necessity is in no particular hurry, I am quite certain we could find some intersection of interest somewhere in the literary world of the 18th century. I will, of course, also perfectly understand if your plate is full or your interest lie in other directions; but do please feel free to stop by Edmond Malone when time allows, and comment or contribute as much or little as fancy takes you; it will be much appreciated in either case.
In any case… It was nice running into you again. Let's, do, hope that more such occasions will present themselves in the future. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Alan, I apologise for the brawl going on over there, and I hope you won't be driven off, although I must admit it's like trying to work next door to a toxic dump open 24 hours a day. Your perspective is much appreciated by me and a few others, and we hope you stick around. If you want, you can just comment on my talk page and I'll keep the discussion clear of any distractions or vitriol. Cheers Alan! Tom Reedy (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the note Alan, and I'm pleased you'll be around for a bit. I was a journalist for a medium-sized newspaper for a while during my chequered past, which is where I really learned to write, all formal training notwithstanding. I see you're also interested in jazz. I've long wanted to improve the Ward Pinkett article, and hopefully I'll have enough time left in my life when this SAQ page is done to do that. I have some ideas on the lede but I didn't have time today to propose them. All best. Tom Reedy (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Alan, that's very kind of you to say so. I believe this is one of the core points of assuming good faith: when someone appears to be behaving irrationally, consider what their perspective might be that would explain why they do so. In most cases you will find a perfectly plausible and rational explanation for it. For instance, I've long since concluded that the main problem in discourse with most of the anti-Stratfordian editors here is that they genuinely believe their own arguments, and are probably at least as frustrated with the mainstream as we are with them. That doesn't make the interactions any more pleasant in itself, but at least it allows you to attempt a constructive and collegiate debate rather than immediately devolving into confrontational and distrustful invective. Not that I always, or even usually, manage to live by it; but I would certainly consider it something to aspire to. --Xover (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

PalkmaryEdit

palk+mary!! Yes, I wuz gunna change that typo when the text went up and then thought, 'Nah, too many tweaks. They'll get it.' 'Palmary' has a specific meaning at least in the personal slant of my lexicon. It was frequently used to compliment a fine, or brilliant, 'emendation' of a manuscript reading in classical languages. But I shudda fixed it, ay! Thanks Alan Nishidani (talk) 09:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearanceEdit

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on April 23, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 23, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 02:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Shelly-Manne-Best-Of.jpgEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:Shelly-Manne-Best-Of.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: West Coast jazzEdit

Thanks for the feedback. I would have thought it exceeded "Start" class, purely on the basis of the amount of text, although I don't think it really works that way. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be someone from the WikiProject(s), just figured that was the best place to ask. Mainly, I wouldn't want to do the assessment myself, for an article that I had just worked on (except going from "Stub" (or no assessment) to "Start", which I think is pretty objective). I have trouble myself drawing the lines between "Start," "C," "B" etc. No worries, someone with a better idea of these will come along. Thanks again, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Your revert of Shakespeare authorship questionEdit

Thanks for your edit summary, Alan, I was hoping somebody would revert in just that way. It's not good to have the dumb-ass bots insulting the newbies. Bishonen | talk 08:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC).

And, thanks, Bishonen, for helping to keep things around here from becoming more chaotic than they have to be--and doing it with a much appreciated (by some of us, anyway) sense of humor. One thing about the dumb-ass bots, though, they're quick, and they never seem to need any sleep. :-) Regards, Alan W (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


To AutumnEdit

Thank you for sorting that out. I was a little hesitant about removing it entirely. Amandajm (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, hello again, Amanda! It's been a while. I hope you're well. For someone who strikes me as very much a "no nonsense" kind of editor, you were, I thought, a bit too lenient in letting that last bit of the anonymous editor's editing stay there, and I agree entirely with your removing the other things you removed. I think because so many of Keats's other odes are titled "Ode to..." or "Ode on...", people sometimes remember, or misremember "To Autumn" as "Ode to Autumn"—or perhaps are even a little irritated that he was not consistent in the titling of his odes. But, though it is very much an ode, that is not, and never was, its title. To corroborate what I believe (and to feel certain that I wasn't misremembering this myself), I just consulted Bate's biography (and Bate is surely one of the great Keatsians). The index is extremely detailed, and nowhere is there an entry for an "Ode to Autumn". So I felt that, if "Ode to Autumn" might be justified much later in the article in an appropriate context (one source does remember it that way), that incorrect title is absolutely not justified in the lead of the article, certainly not in the very first sentence! Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Berowne PerowneEdit

Reading Ian McEwan's Saturday this afternoon after years of dithering, I recalled our disagreement about the respective merits of the James' brothers' prose styles. I find, as a solace, on p.58 that the neurosurgeon Perowne is said to think that:-

'James had the knack of fixing on the surprising commonplace - and. . .wrote a better-honed prose than the fussy brother who would rather run round a thing a dozen different ways than call it by its name.'2005 p.58

Eureka, I chortled to myself quietly, while thinking that probably you can't, if you're normal, chortle quietly and perhaps I should have thought 'chuckled to myself quietly', only I'm not normal! So there you go Alan (as he abandons the keyboard and shuffles towards the hearth to continue reading, he muses:'Then again, that's ironical. Perowne is a neurosurgeon with no background in literature, unlike his brilliant daughter, who has to tutor his literary lackiness..Hmm. Cheers Alan Nishidani (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, hello there, Nishidani! It's been a while. I don't think I ever meant to disagree entirely, and thanks for that quotation. I have always favored Willy over Harry. Insofar as "the style is the man", Willy's style speaks more to me, at bottom. Even so, there is something in the individuality of Harry's style—like no other I know—that I find intriguing. He was groping for meaning in his own way, which was very much his own and worth some attending to. Yes, too often he ends by wandering lost in a hall of mirrors, or disappearing in a mist. Something is there in all that, though, that makes me admire his efforts, however much in vain they may turn out to have been. It happens also that recently I reread the delicious parody of Henry James by Max Beerbohm, "The Mote in the Middle Distance", in A Christmas Garland, and enjoyed it as much as ever. That James himself appreciated it and praised the author cannot but increase my respect for the man. He could be a good sport. In the end, I'm with you, and I find that Willy has more solid things to say to me about the world I know. But it's good to have both. I suppose that, in or out of Wikipedia, I've always been an "inclusionist". Cheers to you too, Nish! --Alan W (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

RoovesEdit

I'm not going to fight over the spelling. You can have your way. Just pointing out that your edit summary is a bit offensive. "Rooves" is a perfectly good word. Just try Googling it. Plenty of hits. It may be old fashioned, or there may be some other reason you haven't encountered it, but do be careful with absolute statements of what's correct and what's not. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Final apostrophe in italic quotationsEdit

I am not sure if you found the way to clarify an end apostrophe by adding a nonbreaking-space " " afterward. Example:

  • Markup: "George Orwell: '' 'As the bones know' ''"
  • Results: "George Orwell: 'As the bones know' "

Alternatively, I often italicize the final quotation mark:

  • Markup: "George Orwell: '' 'As the bones know'"''
  • Results: "George Orwell: 'As the bones know'"

Either way, in many browsers, an italicized end apostrophe will be hidden by the final quotation mark, and so an alternate format (using   or italic quotation mark) should be used. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this tip, Wikid77. I will search for places where this has been a problem and apply your solution. (I can't remember any now, but I do recall that, yes, I have found this to be a problem.) --Alan W (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Of course, now I remembered that the example you have given was exactly the place where I last had this problem, in the article on William Hazlitt. I have gone back and applied your solution (the first way looks the best to me). Thanks again! --Alan W (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

To AutumnEdit

Yes, you're right. I don't know why I made that change! Amandajm (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. And also thank you, as I said, for indirectly getting me to think, Why don't you just go in there now and make the change you were considering for some time now? So I did, and once again, between us, we are improving the article.
Glad to see you have also continued to do other great things here. I just had a look at Gothic architecture. Very well done, to judge from the parts I have read. Maybe it will inspire me to visit more of the treasures of Gothic (Revival, at least) architecture in my own city. I pass Renwick's Grace Church all the time, reminding me of how many gems there are around here. Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling articleEdit

Thanks for the message. I was never in favour of the change, but I wasn't that bothered about it. I couldn't just change it back at the time because of the technicality that the redirect had been edited. I just couldn't be bothered to go to the effort of making a request to change it, so I just piggy-backed on Tom's initiative. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And thank you for the additional background. Yes, some of us just want to contribute meaningful content here; the daunting tangle of bureaucratic procedures and annoying technical obstructions can lead to procrastination over minor but useful improvements. Reading some of the responses in the discussion on the Shakespeare's influence talk page does not make me feel any more comfortable about the situation. That one needn't be a "specialist" to recognize instantly who "Shakespeare" is without the "William" qualification is to me commonsense. I would think it would be so to anyone with even a secondary-school education in the English-speaking world. I could hardly believe that there would be opposition to this change (or, for that matter, that the change in the reverse direction would have been made in the first place); yet there it was. Oh, and your analogy with the titling of Shakespeare in Love, that was a good one, Paul! --Alan W (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I spoke rashly. It turns out that the president of France can't tell the difference between Nicholas and William Shakespeare [1]. Paul B (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Bizarre. Earlier I was musing that perhaps I too was overly confident about identification of the name "Shakespeare" by secondary-school students in English-speaking countries, given the degeneracy of public education these days (maybe private, too), at least what I know of it in my own country. I don't know what your experience is, but a friend of mine who teaches history at a nearby university has related plenty of disturbing stories along these lines. --Alan W (talk) 02:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Closing noteEdit

Just incidentally, Alan. If like me you think TV steals too much of our attention from the spoken word, I can highly recommend the site (ABC-Late Night Live) where Kate T. was interviewed. Ignore the politics interviews - far too rightwing, anyway, for my sense of sobriety - but it provides three solid interviews a day, four days a week. A better average of good hits than one gets if one frequents the TED list. I find at least two or three in a week, on major books and scholars particularly, enjoyable 'listens'. Adams casts a broad net world wide and over multiple disciplines, and most importantly, he's read the books whose authors he interviews. Mustn't blog on. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nish. TV doesn't steal much of my attention, since I rarely watch any these days. In fact, I keep putting off replacing my broken TV set. I really don't feel I need it, since so much is now streamed over the Web, and Wikipedia and good old-fashioned reading (even, if I dare confess it, of paper books) occupy so much of my leisure time. If this Australian ABC-Late Night Live is available streamed over the Web (as apparently it is, since that is what I was watching yesterday), I will keep your tip in mind. That was certainly a nice interview with a young talent from your home city, of whom you may be very proud. Cheers, Alan W (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

middle east vs. the Middle EastEdit

Please note that I have reverted the capitalization change here. Not every appearance of the words "middle" and "east" in succession refers to the geographic region the Middle East! Please take note of this potential mistake in the future. --Alan W (talk) 05:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Alan, duly noted. CmdrObot (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

SAQ talk pageEdit

For the record I didn't just stride onto the SAQ talk page, it was a continuation of a discussion on the 17th E of Oxford talk page and on my own talk page. I've never done edits where I've been forced to go into all sorts of detailed rules. IMO it's a good way for certain editors to keep other editors away from these topics, which they will probably have done with me. Life's too short. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy "damages"Edit

Thanks for the catch; as a law student, I probably should've caught that mistake as I typed it. :P Inks.LWC (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a good one, Inks! And it's funny, in that when I just saw that you left me a message, my first thought was, oh, no, now I'm going to have to argue about this. On the contrary! No digging up a half-dozen dictionary definitions to back up my change. You know better than I do. I'll add that you have quite an interesting background. First, training in meteorology, now law. I've worked with quite a colorful bunch of people in the nearly ten years I've been here. Makes Wiki-life that much more interesting. --Alan W (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
It has definitely been a benefit overall. My interest is environmental law, so having a science background of any kind puts me miles ahead in being able to understand the basics behind the laws (e.g. what SO2 and CO2 are and why you can't treat them the same). Plus, it's a great conversation starter, and I'd estimate that over half my job interviewers have opened up with something about my undergrad history. The downside is that everyone asks for forecasts, and I always hated that part of meteorology. I was much more interested in post-event analysis and research. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Funny again, that about the forecasts. But, on the serious side, you, who, if you're just starting out in this career, are probably a lot younger than I am (yes, don't know where the years go, and I'm moving into geezer territory :-), and it's good to see that influence over this world is passing into the hands of those like you who might yet save it. Regards, Alan W (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings!Edit

  Happy New Year, 2014
From Amandajm (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

On New Year's Day, 600 years ago, Giovanni Bellini began work on a rather large "Dejeuner sur l'herbe" but having set up the models and commenced the painting, he soon found that he was in no fit state to continue it.
At this point Titian stepped in. That's him on the extreme left. Bellini is sleeping it off under a bush.

About self-publishing and reliabilityEdit

I understand the reason you removed my essay from the external links on the Shakespeare authorship question article, and I appreciate that wikipedia cares enough for the integrity of its service to exercise these principles. I only want to add that I regret no exception can be made when an article is itself very carefully documented and written painstakingly by someone knowledgeable in the field, though not yet published under editorial guidance. The guidelines you linked have a lot of words like "generally," "largely," and "usually," which seem to imply wiggle room if the page manager judged the article worth reading. --Still, it's better to have oversight than chaos, so keep up the good work and thank you for your efforts to uphold wikipedia's standards. GregB (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you understand. I know you put a lot of work into that article. I think it's very well written, and as far as I can recall now (don't have the time now to go back and read it again) I pretty much agree with what you wrote. As for oversight, you may be sure that if I hadn't removed that link, someone else would have. Also, please be aware that in a field as vast as Shakespeare, there is only room for so much. But I'm sure that with your knowledge and skills, there is much you could contribute to other Wikipedia articles, material that would not be removed and for which you would get credit—along with the satisfaction of having made valuable contributions. --Alan W (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

About Carolyn Spurgeon's thesisEdit

Sorry for not discussing this here first. I'll leave it to you to remove, if you see fit, the phrase "marking the first time a recognised Shakespeare scholar has devoted a book to the topic." You reinstated it because "Spurgeon's book was not about the SAQ as such, it was about Shakespeare's imagery." It seems more accurate, though, to say it was about comparing Shakespeare's imagery with that of other writers. In her preface she describes her planned three-part project:

This first study deals chiefly with suggestions as to light thrown by the imagery (1) on Shakespeare's personality, temperament and thought, (2) on the themes and characters of the plays. The other [two] books [never completed -gb] will be chiefly concerned with question of authorship considered in the light of this freshly collected evidence, and with the background of Shakespeare's mind and the origins of his imagery. (ix)

And:

[This method] enables us to get nearer to Shakespeare himself... throws light from a fresh angle upon Shakespeare's imaginative and pictorial vision... and it seems to me to serve as an absolute beacon in the skies with regard to the vexed question of authorship. (x)

The topic of this first book, the only part of the project she completed, I think should be understood as groundwork for her larger project. It is appropriate that she focuses on particulars, as no other scholar in her day appeared willing to do the necessary work of distinguishing these authors not by circumstantial, but stylistic evidence. The first authors she takes up for comparison are the two most commonly put forward by contemporary anti-Stratfordians as the true author of the works, in her Chapter II, "Shakespeare's Imagery Compared With That of Marlowe and Bacon." A few pages into that chapter she revisits her general thesis:

Shakespeare and Bacon are the two greatest men of their day, and the claim that Bacon is in truth Shakespeare and wrote his plays is still held to be a serious and well-founded one by a large number of people. It is natural, therefore, that one should be eager to ask, 'What does an examination of their images tell us?' (16)

The conclusion of that chapter returns to her general thesis:

These facts all point one way, and all seem to support the view that we have here, behind these two sets of writings, not one mind only, but two highly individual and entirely different minds. (29)

The first paragraph of the next chapter, "Imagery of Shakespeare and Other Dramatists Compared," repeats the thesis "that such analysis throws light on each writer's individual tastes or experiences" (30). Her chapter X, "Association of Ideas," concludes,

This curious group of images illustrates better, I think, than any other, Shakespeare's strong and individual tendency to return under similar emotional stimulus to a similar picture or group of associated ideas, and it is obvious at once that it forms an extraordinarily reliable test of authorship. (199)

Practically every page emphasizes "his most individual way of expressing his imaginative vision" (213), but occasionally, especially near the beginnings and endings of chapters, she explicitly mentions "the question of authorship. The fact that this metaphor is continuous, that it starts in 1 Henry VI and is developed in the two later parts, seems to me one of many proofs that the same mind and imagination has functioned through all five plays..." (224). On the next-to-last page of the book she is still emphasizing the comparison: "No other writer, so far as I know, certainly no other dramatist, makes such continual use of running and recurrent symbol as does Shakespeare" (354).

I think at least adding the phrase "with the exception of Carolyn Spurgeon in her unfinished project" is warranted. In the light of the stylometrics studies using neural networks etc., which are cited pretty widely and which date from the late 20th century, I think the entire statement is doubtful enough to delete.

A final question: Should I infer from your reply above ("there is much you could contribute to other Wikipedia articles, material that would not be removed") that I should not offer further contributions to this particular page?

A final note: I'm not very interested in credit, but I would like to contribute to accuracy where possible. GregB (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may intrude on Alan's page regarding this? Alan's reasoning re Spurgeon is cogent, and your edit summary was defective. On the other hand, Frank W. Wadsworth certainly was an Elizabethan scholar, perhaps not stricto sensu a Shakespearean scholar, teaching-wise at least he was, and he did write a full-length study, The Poacher from Stratford whose precedence might give one pause over the words used of Shapiro's book. There is also Irv Matus's beautiful book to consider, but, lamentably, he was never a recognised Shakespeare scholar, though he was recognized by Shakespearean scholars as such. Perhaps it could be tweaked to read that (whereas Wadsworth surveyed the field of hypothesis). The crux would be resolved by writing : marking the first time a professional Shakespeare specialist has devoted a book to the topic (Schoenbaum doesn't count because his book only deals with this in a kind of appendix etc). Exit to boos from the galleryNishidani (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
First of all, Greg, no, I think I said what I said about what you could contribute mostly in view of the only thing I had seen you doing, which as I mentioned was a bit out of bounds, given Wikipedia rules. You are certainly as welcome as any to contribute to this page as long as it is done, again, according to those rules.
By the same token, no boos from me, Nish! This is well worth discussing, although I would think that most of this discussion is more appropriate for the talk page of the SAQ article itself. Although I think that the phrase I restored is basically correct, still, you are making a point worth pondering, Greg. As for being a recognized Shakespearean scholar, I do think that Spurgeon fits that category. It's just that the main theme of her book is not the Shakespeare Authorship Question as such, unless I am greatly mistaken (I have read selections, but not the whole book).
It seems to me in retrospect that, yes, several Shakespeare scholars before Shapiro have taken up the question of authorship at one point or another in their books and other writings. It's just that Shapiro may well have been the first to devote an entire volume on the authorship question as a sociological phenomenon, which modifying phrase, or words to that effect were added by, I think, Johnuniq, very aptly. But there are other contributors to this page who are much, much more familiar with all the background material than I am. And whether this mention of Shapiro's book should be modified is a topic I think might well be discussed by many others who care to participate, before any changes are made. So, again, I am going to copy much of this discussion to the article talk page. --Alan W (talk) 23:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare Authorship Question: "Queen Elizabeth I" as a possible candidate?Edit

Hi Alan,

I am new to Wikipedia, so I apologize for not talking about my edits before hand.

I just think we should include Queen Elizabeth I as a possible candidate for authoring Shakespeare.

As queen, it is certainly possible that the works of Shakespeare have been edited, or even written by her directly.

I have found a few others who think the same way.

Here is the best article I found:

http://clockwisecat.blogspot.com/2007/10/essay-by-edwin-young.html

I don't know how to get this discussion started.

Maybe you can help me on this.

Thanks!

Reedlander (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year SocietyEdit

Dear Alan,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards,  — Scott talk 19:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Could I congratulate you on your staying power, and, now that I think of it, I think you, like Tom, Paul Barlow, Peter Farey and Johnuniq, should gave your record graced by the Wikipedia:Million Award, since without your acute care and supervision at critical moments in the Shakespeare Authorship Question article, I very much doubt it would have got to FA and remained stable.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

William HazlittEdit

Good morning. I stand corrected and enlightened about your removal of William Hazlitt the essayist from the category list of English Unitarians. Did not realize he had renounced his faith neither did I know the list would have excluded defectors from it.Cloptonson (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

A defector he certainly was. In later life he was never clear in all his writings about what exactly he did believe, maybe in part in deference to his father, who was a distinguished Unitarian minister. Some biographers and critics have called Hazlitt an atheist, others agnostic, and if I recall correctly at least one a deist. He called himself only a philosopher, a "metaphysician," and he seems to have been heavily influenced by the skepticism of Montaigne and Hume. As you can see, I have a special interest in Hazlitt. Given that, I can appreciate what you added to the article on the Shrewsbury Chronicle last year about Hazlitt's first published piece of writing. Regards, Alan W (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!Edit

Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I wish instead of a bout of flu'Edit

that I could be 'under the weather' in the sense of 'going on the shicker', dipping the vinous proboscis into an assortment of grogs and ending up 'four sheets to the wind.' But in my state, I'd only end up doing a Jackson Pollack (Blue Poles) by going for the big spit and painting the porch with a kaleidoscopic laugh, which wouldn't tickle my industrious wife's sense of serene order as the year spins on its axle and the preludial hours of the coming year are spent in making far-fetched promises to be a bit more tidy around the house! Cheers, Alan, and have a good evening, and an even better New Year, if that's possible.Nishidani (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Leave it to you to do everything to the hilt. For most people, three sheets are enough. For me, a much smaller taste after midnight as I celebrate the New Year with friends (over the phone; don't want to pass on my cold, which is what I have), will do. As for the New Year being better, well, it certainly won't be worse if we keep going as fruitfully as we have been on the Hazlitt article. You are the last person I have to remind of it (as the occasional glance over random parts of your talk page reminds me from time to time), but such pleasant collegial editing is not always the way things work out around here. A very Happy New Year to you too, and may your influenza soon turn to outfluenza. --Alan W (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I've been feeling guilty, no edit for a few days. I have been on a research and reading splurge admittedly on things little connected with wiki, and even when editing here, distracted by nuisance stuff. Just a note to assure you that Hazlitt is one of the yearìs priorities for me, and I will get back to it, hopefully shortly. Hazlitt shakes one back into sanity, snd that, for me,is more than a sweet inducement to keep on the ball. These kinds of topics edit better when there is a certain momentum gsthered among editors, and I'm falling short in that regard. Cheers, Alan.Nishidani (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
No worries. I've been using the lull to poke around in other Wiki areas and also to do some prep work for other Hazlitt material I'm planning on adding. Some of it has to do with other articles, mainly one I've been building up for years on The Spirit of the Age (when I said I work slowly, I meant it; and yes, momentum: I have sustained a degree of momentum with that article, but it is the momentum of continental drift). I've also, though, been reading this and that on preparing to add to the section in this article on Hazlitt's "Posthumous reputation", which, as I said, not only doesn't say enough, what it says isn't even really correct. In short (and I know, sometimes it's hard for me to say anything "in short"), this apparent lull is not time wasted. Still, I appreciate the update of your plans regarding this collaboration. Regards (and I hope you've recovered well from the flu), Alan W (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Elaborate elaborations on the capacities of pins' heads as concerns vertical support of angelweightsEdit

I think Bmcln1 has made clear their desire to not be further bothered with anything related to that article right now, and we should probably simply respect their wishes. Hopefully we may regain their participation at some point in the future when the activity on it is such that participation brings them joy rather than frustration, as all such endeavours should ultimately do. --Xover (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Xover, I have no intention of bringing this up with Bmcln1 again; his or her wishes have indeed been made very clear. I just wanted to explain why I felt it was better to carry on a discussion like that on the article talk page rather than on a user talk page. I recall that a few years ago I did engage in some minor dispute on another user's talk page. The matter went nowhere, and I was a bit disturbed, but I suppose not quite enough to look into other steps for resolution, or whatever. And I let it drop. A long time after that, I was mentioning the matter to yet another Wikipedian, who said that if I had only brought up my concern on the article's talk page, others might have joined the discussion, and whatever it was that was the subject of the dispute would have been resolved, in all likelihood, more speedily and satisfactorily. I never forgot that. But now, well, all I can do is drag out the old expression that nobody can please everybody. Regards, Alan W (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Well yes, I certainly don't agree with their position on this; and as someone with north of 2,5k pages on my watchlist I have limited sympathy for an argument based on "too much noise". I think one should absolutely take up such issues on the article talk page, and if a discussion, such as the one we were having about nuances of phrasing, becomes too tedious one should simply ignore it. However, if, for whatever reason, they feel the need to abandon the article altogether over this, and plainly do not wish to discuss it, then I feel the best approach for us is to respect that and leave them in peace. --Xover (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Your nice wordsEdit

Alan - Thanks for understanding/tolerating my need to include all aspects of these fine jazz musicians' talents. And your input, including but not limited to format concerns, is always appreciated!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scberry (talkcontribs) 20 April 2017 04:30 UTC (UTC)

I tend to be an "inclusionist", so no complaints from me, as long as the Wikipedia rules are followed. Speaking of rules, I'm not blaming you for any horrendous lapse, but do please remember to sign your contributions with the standard ~~~~. I know you've been around here for only a few months, so I'm just reminding you. I've been here for over 13 years, despite the many frustrations of surviving on this project. Clearly, it has its rewards, as I'm still hanging in there. :-) Regards, Alan W (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Re:Ben AronovEdit

Oh, thanks! Yeah, I'm mostly a stub factory, but someone's gotta get things started, right? I was mostly dormant on article creation for a long time, but came back to it recently. I found Aronov in the process of generating a list of American musicians who have articles on the German Wikipedia but not here. They have a few editors who have maniacally devoted themselves to writing music articles, especially in jazz, for more than a decade, with the result that they've got thousands more articles than the English-language Wikipedia does. I wrote the Aronov one on a lark, because it was easy to put up from an at-hand reference. I've been generating a list of missing articles here at User:Chubbles/Missing American music; you might find other great pianists waiting in the wings on it. Chubbles (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I see what you mean about the German Wikipedia and music articles. I'm a long-time jazz fan (not that they are necessarily all jazz musicians; though it's also true I also like a lot of other types of music), but in that list on your subpage (even in the jazz and blues section, and I do occasionally listen to blues as well), all but a very few of those names draw a blank for me. I'm sure there is value in getting something about all of them into the English Wikipedia, though. Of course, I would say that, as (as I recently mentioned to another Wikipedian further up this page) I tend to be an inclusionist. Glad you have returned to your stub creation. I, for one, do appreciate what you have been doing here. Whew, ridiculously late in this part of the world; my hours are getting crazier and crazier these days. So, good night. --Alan W (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Shakespearian AuthorshipEdit

Alan,

thanks for your feedback. You motivated me to document my contribution more thoroughly. I hope you will agree that the restated article adds to the reader's understanding by summarizing the common arguments for each work and presenting them in chronological form. I have endeavored to include source material where possible. The topic is controversial, I attempt to convey the material in a neutral tonoe. Unified field (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Saying HelloEdit

Hi Alan! I don't use my real name on here but we met at a party in Brooklyn recently. Great to see you here! Woshiwaiguoren (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Woshiwaiguoren! I was wondering if and when I'd hear from you. Great to see you here too. I already figured out that you must be Woshiwaiguoren, and I looked at some of your contributions. I hope you'll be contributing more. But wait! I just checked again, and I see that only a little earlier you did make a major contribution. I haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly yet, but it looks good. Also, congrats on your recent graduation! Regards, Alan W (talk) 12:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

July 2018Edit

  Hello, I'm KAP03. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to African socialism have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 05:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Did not appear constructive, maybe. But my edits were actually correct. I've left a couple of notes on the appropriate talk pages. --Alan W (talk) 06:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not usually my thing...Edit

...to go put notifications on people's talk pages for every Christian holiday. But as your companionship, support, and encouragement here has been a particularly bright beacon in an otherwise turbulant and depressing world, and since we've had little cause to converse over the past year, I'll break my long-standing habit. Happy holidays, Alan, and all the best to you and yours in the new year!

That "the more the brightest, the most capable, and those with the greatest integrity leave, the worse the situation gets" is true enough, but don't forget that we still have some of those left. Nor that, despite what I imagine would be your most vehement protestations to the contrary, you yourself would fit that bill. And I am equally grateful every time your username pops up on my watchlist! --Xover (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Not usually my thing either, Xover. But, coming from you, this is very welcome, and you have warmed my heart this New Year's Eve. You know, it's a funny thing, when I wrote the words you've quoted, I started to wonder if anybody ever bothers to read my user page but me, and I don't look back at it all that often. So I checked, using the tool that shows page views, and, what do you know, somebody or other does at least glance at that page several times a month. Now I know that you have been responsible for at least one of those page views!
Thank you so much for the kind words. I am not entirely self-effacing any more than you are (yes, I've been "lurking" and reading some of your comments and conversations too), so I'll admit that I have made some decent contributions. Am I among the best? Who knows? You never see yourself objectively. These things are hard for anyone to judge, in any case. It's often a matter of apples and oranges, anyway. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I've admired the way you've dealt with matters of a strictly Wikipedia-administrative kind, inserting your voice tactfully but also firmly in certain disputes, that kind of thing. Not my forte at all; but I can appreciate that ability in others, such as yourself. Also, your writing, when at its most impassioned, has, in my opinion, sometimes risen to the level of eloquence.
Well, I guess you could say we've formed our own mutual admiration society. Happy New Year! I'm not going away if I can help it, and I hope the same holds true for you. --Alan W (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
"tactfully" is not usually a word applied to my antics in this china shop (though I do try!), but "eloquence" is high praise and I'll lap it up as aspirational even if you're being too kind to my efforts there. :)
I don't check your user page often, but I do, obviously, have it watchlisted so I stand a decent chance to spot it when you do update it. It's… Hmm. I think there is somewhat of a lack of self-reflection on the project, at least in terms of the vast majority of editors. Some of that is probably due to the prohibition on using your user page as a blog or similar, but there's also a culture issue: too much of the millennial snark and disdain for high level principles and ideals where somehow a well-reasoned and elaborated argument is automatically dismissed as a "wall of text". In that context, your periodical reflections stand out and I read them with great interest. Partly, of course, because I see echoes of some of my own thoughts and concerns mirrored there, but mostly because they are a lone example of an editor introspectively examining the state of this impossibility of a project. I think we could use, or, at least, I desire, a plurality of voices with variously lengthy perspectives doing a bit of navel-gazing roughly on the order of once a year. The little dramas that occupy us day to day are fleeting things, pebbles in a great river washed away before they register mostly. Except when they suddenly, traumatically, redirect it to a new course, swallowing up established habitats and dwellers in the process. A little more sense of the history to learn from, and a little more reflection, might help us better steer the course rather than thread water or drown in the flood.
You are personally responsible for the fate of Wikipedia, is what I'm saying! :)
In any case, Happy New Year, Alan! --Xover (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
If I am personally responsible for the fate of Wikipedia, then we might as well all give up now. :-) But, no, seriously, I know what you mean. Not expected to solve problems acting individually; we individuals have to band together and fight for what we believe in. I think we agree that just turning away, walking out, and slamming the door behind us in disgust solves nothing.
Side note: After nearly 15 years here, I am still learning new things. Until your posting here, I never noticed that one can break paragraphs with a {{pb}} template.
What you say about periodic navel-gazing is true. We need to balance the push to just go out there and edit, edit, edit with a call to stop at times and reflect on why we are doing what we are doing the way we are doing it. Yes, this does happen, but most often as a side-effect of some acrimonious conflict, times when clear-headedness is unlikely to prevail. Your comments offer food for thought, and there are things I could add, but not just now. Actually, just one reflection, after some unpleasant things I saw this past year: to complement the expression "Don't bite the newbies", I'd add: "Don't bite the old-timers either." I know it's not that simple and needs more elaboration. But too many who have been performing Herculean labors here for years end up being taken for granted and sometimes unceremoniously kicked aside. But enough of this for now. I am going to try to relax and enjoy the holiday, and, yes, again, you have a Happy New Year, too. --Alan W (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hypocorisms edit warringEdit

Hypocoroisms like the ones you are added are explicitly discouraged in the MOS despite your misplaced confidence that "there is nothing in the rules" -- did you even look into the rules or do you just make things up as you go along? This is not your personal playground, but a community of editors. One thing that this community agreed on was a standard of style so articles look similar (and at their best), this style guide is called the Manual of Style (MOS). You've been around long enough to know about it, please stop your disruptive editing and your edit-warring. More information can be found at MOS:HYPOCORISM. JesseRafe (talk) 13:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of edit warring. Your mass reversions look more like edit warring to me. Have you looked at and considered the reasons I gave each time I made my edits? I did not change anything before looking at the MOS. The MOS is specific about the first mention of the name. There are no prohibitions about hypocorisms or other variants in names later in the lede, despite what you claim. There are some cases where name variants are justified. --Alan W (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This method is apparently acceptable to JesseRafeEdit

Please look at the Henry Mancini article for a solution to the objections of user:JesseRafe.

This method seems to be okay since he hasn't reverted it yet!

JaneOlds (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Jane. I appreciate the second opinion. I have actually made changes before similar to your Henry Mancinit edit, and he did revert them. That may have been unintentional. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He makes a large number of these changes at one time, and I can see how any "hypocorism" might raise a red flag for him.
Henry Mancini, I will add, is a good example of the case I'm concerned about. Nobody knows him as "Enrico Nicola Mancini". As I've tried to explain in my comments when I made these changes, with jazz musicians (and I know he was that as well as a composer of film scores), a nickname is often how they are known. The name is closely tied to the subject's notability, and in my view we have to mention it in the lead section (or "lede" as the journalists like to call it) somewhere, even if when following the strictest rules of Wikipedia biography the first mention of a name has to be the subject's birth name. --Alan W (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I just expanded on these thoughts on the talk page of Shelly Manne (who frequently worked with Henry Mancini, by the way), one recent place where JesseRafe reverted my previous edit. --Alan W (talk)

Bengal famine '43Edit

I'm putting it into PR for two months: Wikipedia:Peer review/Bengal famine of 1943/archive2. You don't hafta comment of you don't want to. Lingzhi2 ♦ (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi. Thanks for pointing this out. I'll be glad to take a look when I get the chance, and I'll see if I have anything to add to the conversation. Regards, Alan W (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Reflist on talkEdit

In re this. It looks a little ridiculous because it happens that the ref tag is in the last talk page section. But if it were used in, say, three different threads up the page a ways, and the refs from multiple threads were displayed in a single auto-generated list at the end, it would make more sense. Short version: while not a widespread problem, this bot task is actually a good idea (IMO, etc., obviously). --Xover (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, hello there, Xover! Always a pleasure to hear from you. I thought of you when I looked at this article. I reread parts of it, and good work by you, Paul B. (RIP), and your collaborators.
Yes, the creator of that bot means well, but I think it needs more work. I looked at some of the other work done by the bot, and there was at least one case where adding the reflist just resulted in some kind of error message being displayed on the page. (See Talk:Judith_Durham.) In the present case, the section where the References subsection was added was the last on the page, and that section is very short, so the whole apparatus overwhelms the eye and distracts from the conversation. That is why I commented that I think it looks ridiculous. Also, the article is essentially complete and the talk page hasn't had anything added in years, making this addition seem pointless to me. Bots have their place, but in some cases a human eye and human judgment are needed. In my opinion, this is one of those cases. But, as I said, it's not that big a deal. I certainly won't lose sleep over this. :-) Hope all has been well with you. Regards, Alan W (talk) 05:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh, also, another problem is that the References are not being displayed in one list at the end of the article in cases where there is more than one inline citation. I think that would probably look better. See, e.g., Talk:Adultism. The current way takes up much too much space on the page. --Alan W (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as mentioned, when the section using ref tags—and thus getting a {{reflist-talk}} template added—is the last section on the page it doesn't look particularly good; and even worse when that section is a short one. It's a definite downside. However, I'll note, it's not a downside associated particularly with the bot: it is just adding the template that many consider it good practice to use manually. There's also no question that some pathological cases require human judgement: your Judith Durham example being an apt case in point. I've fixed the badly borked template syntax used there, but, again, that's on the comment's original author and the error message you note was present regardless of the bot (just displayed elsewhere).
But mainly the issue is a fundamental disagreement: the bot's existence is premised on it being a good thing to keep references within the section in which they are used (on talk pages, not in articles). Per your "Adultism" example this is the point of disagreement. That's fair enough, but I'll suggest you consider whether your position is based merely on the visual aspects, as your comment seems to suggest. That aspect I'm happy to concede is not optimal. But my main reasoning is that keeping refs with the relevant section is a whole lot less confusing in most instances. The talk page is not one coherent work like an article is (well, should be at least). Combining the refs into one list is akin to combining article references from multiple articles into one list. And it really doesn't help that that combined list, when auto-generated, appears at the end of the page and looks like it is attached to the last thread there.
In any case, while I'm the first to lament all these bots making mechanical edits to the detriment of human efforts, and too often with very dubious value, in this particular instance I will argue that your disagreement is with the underlying practice and not with the bot per se. The bot's operator is running it on the understanding that using reflist-talk is a good thing, and ran an RFC on one of the village pumps to assess consensus before starting. Unlike a lot of bot operators that are remarkably uninterested in consensus if they can get away with enforcing their subjective preferences by automated editing. --Xover (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm still awake and on line (very late in this time zone), but here I am (no work for me tomorrow is one reason). You make some good points, there, Xover, especially that about the desirability of keeping the refs sections within the talk-page sections they refer to. Maybe I would be happier with this if the heading and other parts of the References structure were less obtrusive. I certainly don't feel that a bot like this needs to go away completely (and there you read me correctly). We probably don't really disagree about much here. For my part, the problem is just with the way that this is made to work right now. The underlying code could probably use some tweaking. Have a good night (or whatever part of the day it is in your time zone :-) --Alan W (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Dunkin’ DonutsEdit

Please don’t revert my edit because you didn’t heard of the rebranding. Go to their website and you’ll see Dunkin on it. It’s just trying to get outdated and as time goes by, stuff need to be updated. MetricSupporter89 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@MetricSupporter89: I think there's just a misunderstanding. We must mean two different things. You seem to be talking about the rebranding of the business. I am talking about the rebranding of the stores. I'll open a discussion on the Dunkin' Donuts talk page and we'll see what others think. --Alan W (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year SocietyEdit

Dear Alan W,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Funny ha ha?Edit

 
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Alan W (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

This must be a mistake; the block notice says that editing from 174.202.0.0/19 has been blocked, but as far as I know my IP address to the outside world is not in that range; I always edit when logged in, anyway; also, I am not in the list of blocked users.

Accept reason:

IPBE granted by Boing! said Zebedee. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Good grief! What on earth happened here? Anyone, anyone could imaginably be blocked, save Alan, absolutely scrupulous and minutely careful for proper form since I've observed him editing several years ago.Nishidani (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
It's some kind of mistake. This account has never been blocked, not even accidentally, and is certainly not blocked now. I think you can safely remove the unblock template, unless you're getting repeat blocked edit notices when you try to edit outside your user page. --Xover (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There's clearly no block aimed at Alan W specifically. Looking at the 174.202.0.0/19 IP block, it looks to me like it shouldn't affect logged-in users, so I'm not sure what the problem is. @Alan W:, can you tell us the exact message you got when you tried to edit, and tell us what you think your actual IP address is? (You might want to keep your IP confidential, so please use WP:UTRS in that case). In the meantime, as you are obviously not the target of a block, I have granted temporary IP block exemption. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that Materialscientist placed a local (enwp) checkuser block on the same range with a /19 mask (wider than the global /20 mask, which is already really wide) on 31 May. --Xover (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (Also note: Materialscientist has notifications turned off, so he won't have seen the ping.) Almost every account on the /19 range - dozens of them - belong to an abusive LTA, so I understand the motivation for the block, but I have been making shorter and/or less restrictive blocks for this LTA. Boing! said Zebedee, IPBE is going to be the best solution for now, I think, for anyone caught in this hardblock. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • 174.202.0.0/19 is 8190 IP addresses… Just sayin´. --Xover (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's one of the reasons I try to avoid hardblocks like this, but they're sometimes the only viable option, unfortunately. It's particularly frustrating in this case, because the LTA will create several accounts using public WiFi, make a few innocuous edits with them, and then reactivate them days or weeks later to cause havoc across multiple wireless ranges. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've left a note at Materialscientist's talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • And just to add, the IPBE I applied is the same duration as the 174.202.0.0/19 block. If the block is extended, please feel free to ping me and I'll be happy to extend IPBE further. Actually, no, Alan W is an obvious candidate for indefinite IPBE, and I have made it so. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Good call. —DoRD (talk)​ 11:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Nishidani and Xover, for the kind and supportive words! @Boing! said Zebedee: And thank you for the quick response. (And you too @DoRD:) For the record, I think there is another problem besides that of the breadth of the block, maybe some kind of bug in the program(s) written to assess the situation and impose the block. As far as I can tell, my ISP has assigned me an IP address of (I won't give the whole thing, for security reasons, but it's not necessary) 100.x.x.x. At least that is what they are showing me when I log in to my router to get past my local net. But you admins can check what's showing up when I connect to Wikipedia, anyway. I'd be very surprised to find that it's showing up as 174.-anything. Oh, and maybe another clue about what happened is this oddity: I found I was able to work around the block by using a different browser! Weird, since my IP address shouldn't change depending on the browser I use. Can anybody explain that one? Oh, and one other thing: Xover, yes, I was in fact blocked accidentally a few months ago; must have been that block imposed by Materialscientist, since the message I got then was the same one I got earlier today. So this is the second time this has happened to me. --Alan W (talk) 13:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
My guess would be that both instances are autoblocks—Mediawiki automatically blocking what it thinks may be a blocked user or IP trying to circumvent an actual block—which might also explain the browser thing: autoblocks also can set a cookie in your browser (which would be missing in the other web browser). You can check what your actual public IP is by visiting https://www.whatsmyip.org: it'll list the IP it sees you coming from (and a few other details) at the top of the page. If it shows as anything in the rannge 174.202.0.0 - 174.202.31.255 then it was almost certainly the above rangeblock that you tripped into. --Xover (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and, no, most admins can't see your IP address; and the checkusers who could do it aren't allowed to do so (even if you ask for it yourself). Your IP is protected personally identifiable information, and the WMF's Terms of Use (through the Privacy Policy) regulates how it may be accessed. --Xover (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
(ec) Now that you have IPBE indefinitely, you shouldn't have any further issues with rangeblocks, on enwiki, at least. If you run into this problem on other projects, you'll need to request Global IPBE. Anyway, I don't have anything to explain why switching browsers would bypass this block, but given that it's a mobile range, you may have simply been assigned a new IP address by Verizon Wireless that isn't affected by the block. —DoRD (talk)​ 14:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, all who helped with this annoying (and somewhat disturbing, since I knew I had done nothing to deserve a block) problem. And, at least in part, the mystery has been solved. I had forgotten the URL for the Web site where you can discover what IP address you present to the Internet, though later it did occur to me that I could check that way. Now that you (Xover) reminded me, I checked. And, indeed, even though Verizon (and, yes, I do use Verizon Wireless as my ISP, even for my desktop computers) tells me my IP address is 100.x.x.x, the Internet, I now see, sees me as 174.x.x.x. Verizon must translate one address to another somewhere on their network before streaming me out to the world, and the 100.x.x.x address must be good just up to some router within Verizon's network. So this all now makes more sense to me. The only part that is still a mystery to me is, How is it that I could work around the block by switching browsers? (Doesn't seem to be a cookie thing; I thought of that at one point and removed all the Wiki-cookies and logged in again, but that didn't help.) The other browser shows the same IP address via that Web service. I would have been surprised if it didn't, since I don't think Verizon would swap IP addresses on me while I was in the middle of communicating over the Internet, only maybe if I rebooted my modem/router. So I still can't understand that part of this incident.

Also, I never did recall reading that even admins can't just look at Wikipedians' IP addresses. Every day, it sometimes feels like, I learn something new around here, and I've been on Wikipedia for over 15 years. Good, anyhow, that it is possible for admins to grant me the privilege of bypassing a block like this one, and now I'm back in Wiki-business. Good evening, morning, or whatever time it is where all of you reside. --Alan W (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, it's nice to work out why these things happen, even when we have a working solution - and the rerouting via a 174.x.x.x makes sense. The browser thing is still curious if it wasn't a cookie thing, and I've really no idea on that. And yes, only those with CheckUser access can see logged-in users' IP addresses. Anyway, good day, goodnight, good whatever ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

AdviceEdit

Don't say "Fix ugly error". "Fix error" will suffice. Or, better still, "Fix redundant formatting in cite news template". It avoids the possibility of misinterpretation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think your reaction is a bit extreme, Richie333. Sorry if my comment came off sounding insulting or however you took it. But I intended no personal attacks. I was concerned that a "Good article" was showing these blemishes, probably just heretofore unnoticed. If you created the parts I fixed and feel offended, I apologize. But really I meant nothing of the kind. I think you could have phrased your advice a bit more tactfully, too, instead of harshly directing me how or how not to edit Wikipedia. My comment was made in good faith. And I will add my congratulations, Richie333 (I just checked, and I see you contributed more than anyone else to that article). The article is very well done. I would be proud if I had written it. And grateful to anyone who helped make me look better. --Alan W (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Charlie PersipEdit

 

The article Charlie Persip has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Person is not notable, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO guidelines

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rusf10 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This proposed deletion mystifies me. A glance at the article, deficient though it may be in some respects, shows clearly that the subject is notable enough for Wikipedia coverage. I have responded on the article's talk page. --Alan W (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)