You're invited to the Peabody Essex Museum Edit-a-thon Spring 2014

On May 3rd, the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts will be hosting a Native American and Chinese Art edit-a-thon from 9:00-5:00 pm. You are more than welcome to attend, as there will be free food and drink, and an outing afterwards. If you are interested, please sign up here, as we would love to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message at Ed Rodley's talk page. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Boston-area events by removing your name from this list.

I looked at the recent reversions you did at this article. Your reversions I thought were necessary. Those, combined with my smaller reversion of the same editor, just prior to your action, indicate to me that the entire contribution, but for a word or two, ought to be reverted. Could you take a second look? - Neonorange (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look again with leisure but I don't think these edits are harmful, even if not necessary. These were good faith edits and I would hate to inadvertently discourage the editor from contributing to the article again. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. You've more patience than I; editors should read an article before editing. - Neonorange (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

diff You removed this citation saying that it does not support the information provided, but as far as I can tell, it does. The source lists "The Institute of 1770, Harvard's oldest debating society" as an organization Thoreau joined. Of course, I may be misunderstanding something, in which case please let me know. Thanks. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 05:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly being pedantic on that edit. The source really should refer to all this: "He studied at Harvard College between 1833 and 1837. He lived in Hollis Hall and took courses in rhetoric, classics, philosophy, mathematics, and science. As an undergraduate, he was a member of the Institute of 1770 (now the Hasty Pudding Club)." I suppose we could move the reference (if we can alter it so that it is proper) right after "Institute of 1770", and then fact tag the rest of it instead. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense. I'll move the reference accordingly. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heya — Thanks again for attending our event last night and adding a new article. Hope it was helpful! Look forward to seeing you at a future meetup :) Girona7 (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightdreary --

Thanks for the heads up with regard to citing my own work. I had no choice in my Nathaniel Hawthorne edit: my work is original and is the only one that can possibly be cited. What else could I do when broaching a previously unbroached subject re Hawthorne. Put my name into the searchbox at Rupkatha.com to see the entire article, now part of a book out for publishing.

Do you have any advice?

Anthony Splendora — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.60.16 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Splendora:

The best thing you can possibly do is let someone else add the information, preferably cited to a published book vetted by editors rather than a web site. There is an alternative. I have to admit, this work is not original, nor are you the first to broach it (despite your comment above). In the text you added, you yourself note "feminists and historicists have found in Hawthorne's thematic depictions of women a rich source of interest." Either this information is inaccurate (in which case, do not re-add), or there are other "feminists and historicists" you can cite. I would recommend adding information cited to several of them with, perhaps, your own work thrown into the mix, with the caveat I mentioned above. I would think it would not be difficult to find several feminist responses to Hawthorne's work. If you are not able to find them, then the information simply should not be offered at all because it would represent fringe work. Wikipedia likes to show the most common critical responses as a mirror of the larger discourse (though with a more general audience in mind). Although I am not the only editor here, nor am I one of any significance or rank, I highly recommend not re-adding this information without considering these thoughts. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! Maralia (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching my stupid mistake in the title (earning me fifty lashes with a wet raven). How do you like the template additions? It seemed that an author as esteemed and well-known as Poe should have the family and related articles included on his 'map', and I've learned quite a bit skimming (with plans of going back and reading closely) his personal pages that I've run across. Much of that work was yours, so thank you. Randy Kryn 11:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that spelling error is my biggest pet peeve in the Poe world! Template looks fine, though I generally question the value of some of those crufty articles. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorne lived at a time when spelling variants of "Grey" and "Gray" were common in the United States - he made no "error" of any sort - and the use of "sic" absolutely implies such - unless, of course, you routinely add "sic" to half of Shakespeare <g>. CJR: And if a historical document is being quoted, to constantly tell a reader “this is not my spelling” would be too much [sic]ness. Writer, heal thyself. As it was not an "error" at the time, and is not an "error" in US spelling as a rule, the use of "sic" is deprecated as a rule. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (more than 150 examples of books). [7] current usage in news, variant name of local high school [8], used on postcards [9], etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC) </g>[reply]

Fair enough. But I'd be worried that other editors will try to "fix" it, just as I frequently have to revert the spelling of his family name of "Hathorne" (no "w") despite the note we've added to it to say it's correctly spelled. I suppose when you watch the pages I do, you have certain expectations of practicality. --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the Women in Architecture edit-a-thon @ Cambridge, MA on October 16! (drop-in any time, 6-9pm)--Pharos (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nowhere near Massachusetts these days, I'm afraid, and I know not how to remove myself from such a list. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! This is in relation to the Talk:Edgar Allan_Poe#On_the_precise_description_of_Poe_and_Others dispute. I am not the filing party. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robert

What do think of including in the Poe bio a picture of the Felix Darley caricature of Poe as "Tomahawk Man" and the accompanying verse? http://www.eapoe.org/geninfo/poepicfc.htm
--JoePeschel (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My name is not Robert. --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Espresso Addict did this one. It mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 22:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I had nothing to do with that article, let alone its FAC. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris and Brian changed their minds and scheduled another one on this date. If you look in the history, you'll see Lowell. Lowell will be back within a month or two, I'll give you a heads up. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. Thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you reverted my edit to Woman's Record on Sarah Josepha Hale page indicating you thought it was an erroneous edit. I'm providing the link here to show that yes the singular Woman's was indeed used in the title, which was not at all uncommon in this era https://archive.org/details/womansrecordors00halegoog Thanks

MichelleProfessmoravec (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You'll excuse me, but I am 100% percent convinced the title was not Woma's Record, as your edit made it. Your links here provided prove that to be the case. I have fixed it for you, nonetheless. --Midnightdreary (talk) 14:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What would you think of moving the "scandal" section of Elizabeth F. Ellet below her work? Chronologically it precedes her work on The Women of the American Revolution, but its place seems to give primacy to scandal over authorship.

Professmoravec (talk) 11:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be illogical. The chronology is good and, frankly, her work is well represented before that section (including in the lede and in the section just prior to it). I find this a non-issue. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is Steinsky (talk · contribs), older than September 22, 1987! --Allygggggg (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What? And why is this important? --Midnightdreary (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is Houghton Library residency? Are you http://houghtonlib.tumblr.com? --Allygggggg (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about your first question. As for your second, no: I am not affiliated with Houghton Library or Harvard. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not you. The Houghton Library tumblr just answered my ask and said that you Rob just left so I want you to edit your user page more because my partner online was born a day before me. --Allygggggg (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you would delete the links to images of the Washington Memorial Chapel's stained glass windows and interior ornament. "Flickr is not a reliable source," you say? The objects in the Flickr images are as they're described. It would be one thing if you were replacing the links to images with actual images. Absent that, your deleting them seems to serve no purpose. Please explain. == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you're upset but thank you for asking. My edits were as I stated in the edit summary: Flickr does not qualify as a reliable source. The links were used as in-line citations, implying that the link supports the information in the preceding sentence or phrase. For example, this link was used to support the line "George Washington Window (year), south wall (over entrance), Nicola D'Ascenzo, designer" but the link says nothing about the George Washington window, the south wall entrance, or Nicola D'Ascenzo. If the purpose is merely to display representative images we like, using them as citations is not appropriate. Maybe a link to a collection of them under External links? Either way, they are definitely not references. --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In articles about artists and architects, links to images of the works described or listed are standard if there are no images available on Wikipedia or Wiki Commons. At the end of the article is a list of the stained glass windows, sculpture and other ornamental features. Your deletion of the links severely damage the reader's understanding of the chapel as a work of art. And to what purpose? == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say, again, is that these links are inappropriate for use as references as they do not provide any confirmation of the information they are alleged to support. If there is another role they can play in the article, perhaps you could consider that. But, again, they are not references. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that's all you can say. Across Wikipedia, there are thousands (10s of thousands?) of footnotes that provide links to images in exactly the same way these do. Especially for articles on art and architecture. But in your opinion they are inappropriate and must be eliminated. I work on Wikipedia to solve problems, not to create them. How can you rationalize that your actions improve the article? == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I'm at a loss to explain it any differently than I already have. You keep asking the same question, I keep trying to explain my actions. If I had seen any of the other 10s of thousands of footnotes that you refer to, I likely would have changed them too. I am not expressing a personal opinion, so I hope you are not taking it personally: I'm merely trying to make the encyclopedia work the way it's supposed to based on established policy by, as you say, fixing what seemed to me an obvious problem. Perhaps you should pursue a request for comment with administrators or other Wikipedia users. It's clear that I can't help you any further. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right - just because one scholar says it doesn't mean it's true. The description that Poe gives of Bedloe's appearance is - dare I say: hauntingly ? - close or identical to what a modern physician might see when a new patient with Marfan syndrome walks through the door. Poe probably met somebody and, great observer that he was, used his recollections to create the figure of Bedloe. I'm by far not a Poe expert like you but this really impressed me. As Poe always does. Thanks, kind regards, George — Preceding unsigned comment added by George G Milford (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Wikipedia: Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd in the Cask of Amontillado that we, un-ironically, use the word "friend" to describe a man the protagonist intends to kill; particularly when one of the key sentences at the beginning of the entire piece is regarding the two faced approach to towards Fortunato. Koncorde (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poe is the one that uses it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Poe uses the word 'friend', but given he is tempting his 'friend' to his eventual immolation is the ironic use of the word not obvious? Koncorde (talk) 10:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems very obvious. Does it, therefore, need further explanation in the article? Would it be enough to satisfy your concerns by writing it as "friend" with the quotation marks at least once, perhaps? --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! So glad you'll be joining our Pittsburgh Wikipedia Redd-up-a-thon! Beginner workshop slides are available here if you're interested, and please let us know what you worked on during the edit-a-thon by filling out the survey. Cheers, --TheLeaper (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine I need a beginner workshop, but thank you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Midnightdreary. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the James Russell Lowell article has been scheduled as today's featured article for February 22, 2017, the anniversary of his birth. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 22, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

dark visionary Poe

Thank you for quality articles around Poe, such as The Raven, Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe, and James Russell Lowell, based on scientific knowledge, for Edgar Allan Poe bibliography, for service over ten years, - repeating (7 May 2009): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1589 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. There is no need to continue informing me. --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your brilliant piece on James Russell Lowell. I'm on a book project that has nothing to do with poetry and it was a real boon being able to get a first-rate bio of Lowell when I needed it. Thanks for that lasting effort. Carrite (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! And grateful for your gratitude. --Midnightdreary (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit--the "half century" was the half century of twentieth-century formalist criticism, not all criticism since the volume was published. Thanks for your help with the article, Dr Aaij (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was not even remotely clear, and I hope you can see my confusion. The only date included in that section was 1842. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know--but the reference made it clear. Excellent article that is, by the way, the kind of article that by itself is enough to almost fill up a Wikipedia article. Dr Aaij (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poetry Project Collaboration has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, the biography of Akira Kurosawa was promoted to GA and it looks like the article might be further nominated for FA. Kurosawa had an interest in Edgar Allan Poe and wrote a film script for "Masque" which is currently being produced as a new film. The instructions for FA nomination state that first time nominators should try to only nominate after they team up with an experienced FA editor. Could you glance at the Kurosawa article to see if it might be of interest? JohnWickTwo (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I liked new adoptive family for her and Edgar. --I Have Always Been a Twin (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Her... userpage? Do you think she edits Wikipedia? And you like what? Not sure what you're asking. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for weighing in here. You might want to fix your signature. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:12, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you said you were tempted to rip out the entire section of "predecessors". I'm not brave enough but I wish you would :) 116.231.78.79 (talk) 08:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I thank you for the photograph of the statue of Katharine Lee Bates that you posted on wikimedia commons a few years ago. I just added it to the article about her. By any chance, do you have a photograph of Katharine Coman's grave? I know it's a long shot, but thought perhaps you might have one. Thanks for your work on Wikipedia.AnaSoc (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ana! I'm afraid I don't... If I ever go in that direction, I'll add it to my list. --Midnightdreary (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MidnightDreary! You might know me from my handful of edits on The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket, some of which you thanked me for. I know you love Gothic fiction, and I am currently working on the article for the Gothic novella The Great God Pan by Arthur Machen so it can be a GA. Would you be interested in helping me?MagicatthemovieS (talk)MagicatthemovieS