User talk:Macphysto

This user may have left Wikipedia. Macphysto has not edited Wikipedia since 8 November 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome[edit]

Hello Macphysto, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Roleplayer Good luck, and have fun. --role^player 22:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Larkin[edit]

Thank you very much for the excellent contributions to the Philip Larkin page. Just what it needed. Elsewhere in the article, at the end of the "Creative Output" section, there is some critical commentary which predates the overhaul the page has received this year. Would you mind looking over it? Also, could you look through the "Life" section and tell me if you can see anything that is ambiguous or unclear? The "Larkin's career as a librarian" section is in need of more detail but I'm hoping to get my hands on Larkin's own booklet on the Library soon, which will help us, I think. Finally, if there is anything you can think of that would help the "Posthumous reputation" section look a little more focused, that would be great. Thank you! almost-instinct 11:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all that. May I point out that you forgot to include a ref for this diff?
You spell Chaterjee with one "t". This page spells it "Chatterjee". The cover of his book as shown there appears to as well.
I've divided the Bibliography into "Primary sources" and "Secondary sources". Are these the correct names? And are any of the books in the wrong section? almost-instinct 13:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the first observation, it's dealt with in detail in the section on critical opinion. It would be otiose to reference this, wouldn't it? Can we say something like "See below"?

An inline ref saying "see discussion of Writer X and Writer Y in Section Z.z"? Can't see why not. Though I could be wrong. If I am someone's sure to say so... almost-instinct 17:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan, almost-instinct. Almost true. :) Macphysto (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the second point, fair enough.

As far as the division of the bibliography goes, this is a sound principle. However, technically primary sources are Larkin's writings, so the biogs are really secondary. How about dividing the bibliog into Larkin's writings, biographies, and crit? Macphysto (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you were in doubt as to how many in-line citations would be needed today's flurry of Citation Needed tags should put you in the picture almost-instinct 23:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Macphysto (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - have done 5 of the 6 marked on the page. Macphysto (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Adam Foulds[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Adam Foulds, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Adam Foulds seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Adam Foulds, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted on the relevant talk page. I find it extraordinary that the page was marked for speedy deletion, as Foulds is genuinely notable. I can't trace who marked it, but am bewildered.Macphysto (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An update: I've worked out who it was - a very experienced WP user - and have raised my query accordingly. Macphysto (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Bolaño[edit]

I've recently done quite a bit of work on tidying up this article, which was suffering from a lack of citations. Furthermore, parts of the article had been crudely plagiarized from other sources. I've attempted to remedy this. However, the accuracy of the some of the material on RB's life remains uncertain, and more is needed on the themes and importance of his writings. I may add more in due course, but am hoping that others with expertise (and some respect for WP's guidelines on editing!) will build on what's there at present. Macphysto (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As said elsewhere, it's great that others want to add to the Bolaño page, but could everyone please remember to include citations and avoid POV? Macphysto (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larkin[edit]

Thank you once again for your continuing helpful contributions to the Larkin page. I don't know what this page has done to attract so much ignorant attention. I had always hoped that my work on the page would encourage contributions from people who know more than me on the topic, or those with expertise in adjacent fields, but instead the opposite has happen; this is a great sadness to me. Please do continue to fill in those gaps that I left. almost-instinct 22:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to improve the grammar inscribed on your gong almost-instinct 11:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolaño[edit]

Thanks for working on the Bolaño article. I just came across it yesterday, and aside from your work, it's a mess. So, good job, keep it up. Thanks again. Tammolives (talk) 14:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East West[edit]

If you are not sure, just read: The Island at the Centre of the World: The Untold Story of Dutch Manhattan and the Founding of New York by Russell Shorto http://www.russellshorto.com/books/guardianreview.html

greetings from Amsterdam JRW —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.R.Cartier (talk • contribs) 10:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit you are right about the VOC, thank you for correcting me. The WIC was only just formed in 1623 and so I just added an anachronism (I overlooked an important passage the wonderful book by R.Shorto.)

Mea culpa …etc J.R.Cartier (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review of Philip Larkin[edit]

Just a note to say that I have completed the good article review on Philip Larkin. The review status is "on hold" at the moment and I have left some comments on the talk page. Thanks --Kateshort forbob 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator of this GA, your further contributions to the debate are eagerly awaited ;-) almost-instinct 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some replies to the comments which relate to my text. In a lot of instances the discussion needs to go forward. Could you help out, pls (as you already have in a couple of instances)? I've proposed that you select the final version in each case, for a variety of reasons (not least my personal attachment to my own odd prose) almost-instinct 10:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Status of Philip Larkin[edit]

Hi Macphysto,

I wanted to let you know, as nominator of Philip Larkin, that I have looked again at the article, and I believe it meets the criteria for a good article. I am awarding the article GA-status, and have added it to the list of good articles under Language and Literature. Thank you for nominating this article, and for the significant work you did to improve it. Congratulations! --Kateshort forbob 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to an edit summary I saw somewhere the Larkin talk page is "crazy". I trust you'll be joining me in refuting this outrageous allegation? PS congrats on yr GA. I hope it keeps you warm at night :-) almost-instinct 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bye for now[edit]

Wikipedia's loss will be Charlton's gain. Thank you for the huge amount of content added to Philip Larkin, and see you around WP again one day almost-instinct 11:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC for Larkin[edit]

I don't know if you'll see this, as your Wikibreak seems to be unbroken... anyway on Talk:Philip Larkin someone has put in place a roadmap to FA for the article. This will probably mean people running their mucky fingers over your contributions. I will probably not feel qualified to answer questions on yr sections when they arise, so if you were able to keep an eye on proceedings... almost-instinct 12:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]