User talk:MaggieT

Oh, this is helpful! Thanks!

Welcome!

Hello, MaggieT, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, you can post to the help desk or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Stumps 19:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have been experimenting with Wikipedia. You MIGHT be amazed to know that your recent experiments are absolutely identical to changes made in the last 24 hours by User:65.213.117.15 and User:MichaelJames. As with those users, I see you blanked a lot of information from the article Quatorzain; this is regarded as vandalism. You also removed a link to Leo Yankevich in the article New Formalism, again without explanation. Unexplained removal of information will be reverted. You can always use the discussion page of an article to raise issues with the content of an article. — Stumps 16:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how to use your systems. Leo Yankwich is not a prominent New Formalist--he's a Neo-Nazi (literally--he links to skinhead and anti-Semitic boards) who also publishes poetry on the fringes. He's highly computer literate, brought down several boards with spam attacks, and undoubtedly put his own name in.

As for the other piece, there's just absolutely no justification for the point of view that the only sonnets are Petrarchan. Shakespearean sonnets are not sonnets? Spenserian sonnets are not sonnets? The Encylcopedia Brittanica piece was silly in 1911 and it's even sillier today. It's stupid revisionist history, and you cannot find a credible contemporary source that would present the same view. MaggieT

Thanks for your reply. I had subsequently re-removed the Yankovich link myself after not finding him on books.google, and marked his page with a couple of tags so visitors to it will know it is under investigation. There are a couple of things you could have done do make your intentions clearer:

1. put a comment in the edit summary explaining why you are changing the text
2. put a remark on the 'Discussion' page of the article ... remember to sign entries on discussion pages with four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date

I will have a closer look at the issue relating to the sonnets. Sorry to have got off on the wrong foot, as it were. — Stumps 19:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I've read the Quatorzain article and agree that it is pretty much nonsense. I have made a start by editing out the strong POV (Point Of View) content which is contrary to Wikipedia policies, and explaining the reason for the edit in my edit summary. I will consult what other references I can on this old word and its usage, and see if I can put a little more sense into the article. — Stumps 19:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stumps: Thanks so much. I'm a poetry geek but not a computer geek, so I'm struggling with how to do things here. If I'm not staying with the system, please accept that I'm trying but just inept. Cheers! Maggie

I've had a bit of a look into the quatorzain thing, and I've started a complete rewrite of the article. You were absolutely right that it pretty much needed to be entirely blanked out. (Apologies for mistaking your edits as vandalism: you'll soon learn that blanking large chunks of articles is a common form of vandalism here at Wikipedia.) — Stumps 10:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipeadia certainly needs more poetry geeks, I hope you decide to stay around and help. There is currently a rather half-hearted attempt to organize work on poetry articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry. — Stumps 08:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just made an edit on 'alliterative verse" but I think I may have messed up the signature thing...

No problem ... I fixed the talk page format. You did the four tildes (~~~~) thing exactly right ... you don't need to write 'MaggieT' because this gets put in automatically when you put the ~~~~. In this case I might have just put a comment in the Edit Summary (that little text box UNDER the big box where you edit the text of an article). The Edit Summary is very important because it is what others see in the History of the article, and also in their Watchlists. Try to remember to ALWAYS put some brief description of changes in the Edit Summary.

When it comes to editing the article itself you shouldn't use the tildes as they will put your user name and the time in the text of the article. I liked your addition to Alliterative verse, but removed the last phrase about 'significant improvement' because it felt a little too point-of-viewish to me, and also because the article on Alliterative verse is probably not the best place to discuss the relative merits of various translations of Beowulf. Perhaps a Beowulf Translations article would be worthwhile? — Stumps 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see User:Haukurth has also made some changes to the Alliterative verse paragraph you started. If you click on the 'History' tab at the top of the article you can see how useful are the short edit summaries that different editors leave behind them. — Stumps 15:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how to use your systems. Leo Yankwich is not a prominent New Formalist--he's a Neo-Nazi (literally--he links to skinhead and anti-Semitic boards) who also publishes poetry on the fringes. He's highly computer literate, brought down several boards with spam attacks, and undoubtedly put his own name in.

If Leo is not a prominent New Formalist why do his poems regularly appear in formalist journals?: Chronicles, Blue Unicorn, Edge City Review, Iambs & Trochees, etc? What do his political views have to do with the quality of his poetry and his established place in the New Formalist movement?

Also, everyone knows that Leo is the moving force behind The New Formalist web and print publication.

Calling him a neo-nazi and a skinhead seems slanderous to me. Do you have any proof of this?Gnoza(contribs)

BTW: Gnoza's contributions include White Nationalism. Hmmmm....

I saw your comment on Talk:New Formalism ... please feel free to constructively edit the article in any way. I am keen to see that the article is comprehensive and balanced. The article needs more verifiable information (that is, with noted references) on other aspects of the movement's history and development. Remember to put a note in the Edit Summary, and to use the talk page to make suggestions for other editors. I'm aware that the article currently has a strong Story Line Press focus, but that's the part of the movement's history I am most familiar with (being an old collector of The Reaper in the late 1980's). I look forward to seeing some more info in the article! — Stumps 09:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stumps: Thanks! I'm still totally overwhelmed by how this works even though you've been thoughtful in trying to help me. I'm a little reluctant to jump on now (and not sure I can...). I hope the tip on Leo, which must have seemed unlikely when I raised it, improves my credibility and validates my concern for the integrity of the forum. It seems to me the following key sources could be cited: for journals Light (the only real journal for traditional light verse), Iambs and Trochees, and Candlabrum (spelling?) in the UK; for websites Sonnet Central and Eratosphere; for conferences the West Chester University annual conference on form in poetry; for key reference texts in addition to Turco, Timothy Steele's all the fun's in how you say a thing and also Missing Measures, John Hollander's Melodious Guile and also Rhyme's Reason and a great book by Paul Fussell whose name I can't recall. For anthologies in addition to Rebel Angels, William Baer 150 Contemporary Sonnets, Gail White Kiss and Tell, Annie Finch An Exaltation of Forms And Alfred Nicol The Powow River Poets. there's also a new one from Sonny Williams whose name I don't recall. Hope this helps! MAggieTMaggieT 13:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to use some of this in the article. — Stumps 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've started an article on the Robert Fitzgerald Prosody Award but can't track down all the winners or even when it was first awarded. Do you know much about it? I've emailed the conference admin with the question but so far have got nothing back. — Stumps 21:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stumps: Yes, but maybe not enough to help you right off. They started the Fitzgerald Prosody Award after the conference was institutionalized a bit--probably 1999. Tom Cable, Tim Steele and others have won it, but I couldn't reconstruct the whole list. I'd try circumventing the longsuffering staff and try e-mailing the director, Michael Peich, at mpeich@wcupa.com (I think that's the right address). Coincidentally, I just put up a Tim Steele stub. MaggieMaggieT 22:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Stumps: I screwed up the layout on an addition to The Formalist stub. Can you help? Thanks!!! MaggieT 14:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's all fixed now. Tables are a pain in the neck, not at all easy to do the first time. Help:Tables tells you everything. — Stumps 15:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a sweetheart!!!

A lot of people write articles about their clubs or organizations that do not assert the significance. Someone tagged your club article for speedy deletion since they felt it met with Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion. I agreed, and deleted the article. However, since I was perhaps a bit overzealous and since you are contesting it, I have restored the article. If anyone has a problem with it in the future, the best place to contest it should be at articles for deletion, since your article does indeed assert significance. --tomf688^{talk} 15:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate the response. I'm also trying to track down some critical commentary on the group, which is often called the equivalent to England's "The Movement." (Larkin et al)

I've seen some of your comments around, most recently on the talk page for Horace, and I thought, to help you learn about Wikipedia, I'd give you a second welcome - the welcome message at the top of this page is old and a bit sparse, so I think you deserve the new, all-singing all-dancing version. Have fun! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MaggieT! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

An article that you have been involved in editing, Powow River Poets, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powow River Poets. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Mrathel (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MaggieT! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 226 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. R. S. Gwynn - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Powow River Poets is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powow River Poets (2nd nomination) 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 high-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. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]