Hello, DaftOldBat89, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((help me)) before the question. Again, welcome! Acalamari 18:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Replied on the talk pg, but don't expect much of a responce for a few days sorry am preoccupied. Say, havn't I met you around wiki before? ;) Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I responded on the talk page as well. I've got Moorman now and I fancy re-reading it and filling in some gaps in the Wordsworth's articles, though I don't plan to edit the Lucy poems unless I see something genuinely worth contributing. They seem pretty comprehensive to me.
What was it about the passage in this diff that couldn't be made sense of? Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 22:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi G. First of all by all means revert my edit if you think it's wrong. I don't claim any particular expertise.
The point is that the article said that the poem had been composed in 1804 while later it refers to W being deeply affected by the death of his brother John in 1805, implying I suppose that the poem was in some way a response (but how could that be if John's death postdates the poem?), or rather (what I could make of it) that Dorothy had been valuable support at this time and the poem was a reflection of that support.
The origin of the 1804 claim is W himself, who Mary Moorman says often wasn't reliable in his dating but adds on this occasion that he can be trusted. On the other hand Stephen Gill later only dated the poem between 1804 and 1807.
As for the remarks I remmed out, I simply can't understand them. I would copy-edit them if I understood them, but I simply don't. The Butterfly is a charming poem recollecting childhood memories of D, Alice Fell doesn't directly address D as far as I know though D describes its origins in her journal, but the poem owes nothing to her entry, while The Beggars is indeed an example of a poem where W borrowed from her journal. But taken together I couldn't understand what the edit was trying to say.
However by all means restore them if you think they're worthwhile and I'm wrong. I like this article very much and don't want to impose on it. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have put an image on the talk page of the article. Is this the picture you were asking for?--Traveler100 (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for that. I've answered on the Talk page of the article there. I'm not sure if it the image that appears in Legouis' book, but I simply don't know. I will try and get hold of a copy of his book. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Answered there. Why did you delete the default paramaters for the ((WPPoetry|class=stub|importance=low)), template on the Talk page? DaftOldBat89 (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I don't understand this at all. Someone makes an edit deleting a pull quote in the article Poor Susan I started, I undid it and when I try to edit again I find I've been blocked for "abusing" my account. What's going on?
Decline reason:
This account has been blocked indefinitely because a CheckUser considers it very Likely that it is a sock of Rinpoche (talk·contribs), an analysis with which I agree. WilliamH (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{See remark below about duplicate unblocks} ... ((unblock|Well, I'm not a sock of Rinpoche. Who is this "CheckUser"? Why does she think it "likely" I am a sock of Rinpoche? Is "likely" the standard Wikipedia uses for blocking editors?. Do I get a say in this? This is really very upsetting. I had put my heart into this and felt it contract when I tried to edit.))
Well - as a note to the next administrator who reviews this case - the fact that you are editing from the same IP and range of IPs which Rinpoche uses is pretty convincing. WilliamH (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I use my grandson's computer, who I know uses some kind of public network and I have very strict instructions never to sign off it because of privacy concerns (he's in the public eye). The fact that apparently my IP address has been examined in this way is proof enough of his concerns, which are very real I can tell you. Why did Wikipedia examine my IP address? I was told the point of having an account was to avoid making your address public. What made Wikipedia think I was a sock? Who is the check user? Where can I see the record of her investigations? Why wasn't I notified of Wikipedia's concerns? My grandson is away at the moment and I can't contact him, I mean really in any way at all, but I can assure you I will tell him about this when he returns. And will you please unblock my account. Thank you. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find I can't even leave a message on your talk page about this. I've just tried. Completely locked out and I have done absolutely nothing. I am absolutely gobsmacked by it all, it's so unjust. I am literally trembling with indignation. I shall have to take a walk to get over it. Unbelievable, absolutely unbelievable. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
My conduct (under any account or IP address) is not connected in any way with the block (this can happen if a block is aimed at resolving a separate situation and you are unintentionally blocked as a result because you use the same IP range). See remarks above. This is the best I can do of the situation from the advice page about unblocking. I shall have to wait until my grandson gets back, which might be weeks or even months. The whole point about this was to give me something to do while he was away. I really feel quite troubled by all this, but I'm not going to take this lying down even if my doctor tells me to go easy on it for a while.
Decline reason:
I am also convinced this block is correct. You should also be aware that while blocked your use of this page is restricted to seeking unblock. Any other use could be construed as disruption and jeopardize your ability to edit this page. Tiderolls 15:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm sorry, this mock indignation has now become so thick it's sickening. Methinks thou do'est protest too much. Having read this, compared contribs and contrib styles/grammar/knowledge of Wikipedia, I'm 100% convinced that the sock block is indeed, 100% appropriate here. (talk→BWilkins←track) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's doth and I think your remark is sexist. I would like you to apologise, please (or will you just close the page down?) I may be gaga but I can still discern that kind of thing. Indeed I have lost track of this and I'm not sure I can be bothered to get back to scratch on it. Let someone else take on Wordsworth on Wikipedia. Good luck to them.
"Knowledge of Wikipedia"? Is that also patronising? It's not exactly Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, is it deah? And if it was no doubt I could still cope, gaga or not. Only connect ...
I'm appealing to your Arbitration Committee, Wikipedia's supreme court I gather. If there was some other way to start a debate on this I would use it. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, DaftOldBat89. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.
Hello, thank you for your note. I generally prefer to keep Wikipedia matters on wiki, so I'll reply here. Good to hear that you would have said uncle as far as the quote issue goes; no, that interchange had nothing to do with your being blocked. I am an annoying Manual of Style freak, but don't chase sock-puppets. I'll replace the image soon, hopefully, as I'm off to the library now. The other user's concerns about the other image were sound enough to my mind for removing it. (I don't think it was necessary to be rude to him, by the way.) If you're not a sock, I'm sorry that you have to go through the annoyance. I can't help you with it in any event and prefer not to be involved in this side of Wikipedia. Regards, — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 20:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the image at Poor Susan. My position simply is that if people can upload better images than they should. Deleting images without replacing them, however, strikes me as unhelpful. In the case of Poor Susan I uploaded an image by Myles Birket Foster, a popular Victorian illustrator who had illustrated an edition of Wordsworth's poetry and had illustrated Poor Susan with a pastoral image of a milk maid. That was a steel engraving by the Dalziel brothers of considerable interest in its own right and I would have gladly uploaded it except that the only internet copy I could find was a copyrighted Flickr photo that I didn't want to touch whatever Wikipedia claims are its right to reproduce, and in any case the image was badly toned. So what I did instead was upload a beautiful painting of Foster's from the V & A of the same pastoral theme, one I note you yourself remarked was similar to a another painting of his entitled Poor Susan (I don't know it).
I think it's extremely unlikely you will be able to find good images of the original Dalziel engravings. Good luck. If you do, perhaps you would consider uploading them all to Commons.
I was not 'rude' to your colleague on the Talk page. On the contrary I courteously and in good faith addressed her issues - my concluding remarks following:
If you can find a better image by all means upload it. Foster in fact did one for Poor Susan you can see at http://www.flickr.com/photos/angeljim46/6816021943/, but that's copyright and in any case not very fine, but you can see the theme is the same (i.e. a milkmaid carrying her pail).
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to comment and I trust this sets your mind at rest.
What did annoy was subsequently to discover that she had deleted the parameters for the ((WPPoetry|class=stub|importance=low)) template I had placed. I just used the standard "stub/low" (though in fact Poor Susan is an important poem in Wordsworth's work). She is being disingenuous to imply that she had placed the template and simply forgot to set the parameters. It was me that placed the template and she deliberately deleted the parameters so they appeared as "???/???". But I wasn't rude, merely ironic, suggesting that Silicon Valley, USA, (that seems to be her niche, where she patrols from) has yet to come up with anything to match our glorious six-pack of Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, Milton, Wordsworth and Tennyson.
Yes right, indeed not a sock. Reviewing all this, and checking through the user pages of the various participants in the drama, I feel bullied by youth. I do feel abused and I feel my privacy has been violated. When I woke this morning I had the strangest feeling of oppression, I mean I haven't felt that sort of thing in perhaps decades, and I had to gather my thoughts even to place where it came from. The same after a nap this afternoon; really I feel disorientated by it, something of my trust in human nature lost.
As for the pull-quotes, you're quite right. They should quote an extract from the material. I hadn't taken that on board. I saw it being used somewhere in an article, liked it and made a note of its markup, looking briefly at the documentation, which seemed to support my supposition that it was designed as a visual empahasis. I was about to concede that on the Talk page after you made your note when I discovered I couldn't edit because I had been banned. It was a profound shock, I actually felt my heart contract painfully when I understood what had happened. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added the image of Poor Susan, but the copy I was working from was horribly yellowed, so a lot of detail had to be photoshopped out. No need to reply, your talk page is not on my watchlist and I'm back to the Greeks. — [dave] cardiff | chestnut — 22:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well toned then, as I did expect. I frankly don't think that image is worth uploading, and I question whether it can be a "faithful" reproduction of copyright law, but there I'm out of my expertise. When I get back home I'll enquire of a friend who collects Victorian editions of poetry whether she has a decent copy I can scan and upload to Commons; she might well have. Meanwhgile, can I suggest restoring my original, which is beauitiful? DaftOldBat89 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Myles Birket Foster - Poor Susan
Actually I found reasonable reproductions in an archive.org resource here and I've uploaded a better version "Myles Birket Foster - Poor Susan.jpg" to Commons you might like to use. On a rainy day I'll have a look through all these and upload a selection. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a splendid image for Tintern at page 135 I shall certainly upload. I so love that poem. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And just the image I need for To the Cuckoo at p. 119, my next poem when I get my edits back. DaftOldBat89 (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, I've been looking at your colleague's remark on the Poor Susan talk page and I take considerable exception to her assertion I was guilty of "original research". On the contrary, she is merely guilty of ignorance, as you might expect from a programmer in Silicon Valley (indeed she confesses her ignorance, but then why is she straying into territory she understands nothing about - this is what I don't understand about those who would police Wikipedia)? Birket Foster was a noted Victorian illustrator and his illustated edition of Wordsworth is noted in the bibliography of his bio. I also noted her comment were very derivative of another editor's who had a go at me for using J. M. W. Turner to illustrate It is a beauteous evening, calm and free, comments I had spent some time responding to and where the editor's actions did indeed border on vandalism since she was deleting images even after a revert and a request to take it to the Talk page.
Another very bad night last night. I fear I'm losing the plot here. I shall have to study all this. Why can't I edit Wikipedia any more? What have I done? I have done nothing. I just tried to edit my sand box and I can't. What is going on? DaftOldBat89 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One unblock request is sufficient for admin review. Please remove one, or remove both and post a new one. Tiderolls 21:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see. I misuderstood. I thought the comments after the second implied it had been rejected. The third simply appeals on what finally emerged were the grounds for the ban, that I share an IP with Rinpoche. I've nowikied the second (for clarity) and kept the third.
DaftOldBat89 has requested the Arbitration Committee review the block. The Arbitration Committee has carefully considered the appeal and has declined to unblock.
On a further note, I just received an e-mail from this user (by the name of Flora MacDonald, and they Googled my address), stating that they were on the same public network as Rinpoche, and urged me to undo my edits on the Wordsworth article. They also said that some guy named William was out of the country, and unable to vandalize. Long story short, be aware that this is one of "Flora's" excuses. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The email in question was as follows:
Hello Mr. Rutherford,
I can't find a way to contact you within Wikipedia so I searched for an email address on the internet.
I've see you've deleted all the Wordsworth edits I recently made, thus confirming for me a well known reluctance in academia to contribute content to Wikipedia for fear of having it removed or edited to extinction.
Well, I'm philosophic about that. I'm disappointed that my edits on Wordsworth were not valued and that is all. I feel no compulsion to edit Wikipedia.
I see you have what appears to be a promising career in academia, though how you can combine that with the quantity of Wikipedia editing you apparently indulge I am at a loss to understand. I have often reflected that the younger generation work far harder than we ever did, though whether more productively is another matter .
Without elaborating, can I just bluntly advise you that you risk eventual ridicule with this action of yours. I advise you this simply because I have no quarrel with you that I am aware of and I would be sorry indeed were I to prove indirectly a source of emabarrassment to you. Over the next few days I propose to rescue some of these edits at least. I suggest you should let them be.
Regarding this Rinpoche nonsense, that it is a technical thing to do with a public network I share with him. The root of the whole affair itself is ridiculous - this the Wayback archive of the article he was ultimately banned for: you might care to study it - http://web.archive.org/web/20110711135639/http://www.gutclean.com/buddhistsexabusecases.html. As for William himself, he's been out of the country for months, in "retreat" so to speak, and certainly noti n a position to occupy himself with all the Wikipedia vandalism he is accused of.
