User talk:MollyTheCat/archive1

Welcome!

Hello, MollyTheCat, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
Always sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ so others will know who left which comments.
The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
How to edit a page and write a great article
The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
The handy Manual of Style
And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango 123 03:11, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Thank you. I'm very glad you found the links helpful. Sango 123 17:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the tweak on The Dunciad. I never want to admit to having stalled right in the all-important 4th book, but I suppose I have stalled a bit. I noticed that you did another Pope topic, the Elegy to an Unfortunate Lady. You might want to check out the Elegiac entry and amend what I said there, because Pope's poem is some evidence that the elegy had already picked up heroic verse before Gray (although the things titled "Elegy" written from the Restoration to 1730s, aren't, in my opinion, elegiacs at all, but, rather odes, for they really weren't public monuments). You really figure it's that celebrated a poem today? Hmm. Maybe so, though I always encountered it as a bit of a sidelight to Pope's main career. It's sort of notable that the poem gets celebrated in the age of the "Churchyard Poets", rather than in his own, and the swing to a poetry of sensibility took place after his career was over, for the most part (unless one counts Night Thoughts), and his own contemporaries praised Essay on Criticism, Rape of the Lock, Moral Epistles, and, most of all, Essay on Man above everything else he did, especially the pathetic verse like that elegy and Eloisa to Abelard. Geogre 03:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't mean to question the adjective for factuality, merely to ask about how deep it goes. I could be wrong (often am), but, although I see a sentimental streak in Pope (and Mack...well, it's the best bio we have, and he was a genius critic and a very acute critic of Pope's, but the biography was disappointing to me; it was as if he pulled his punches critically while not having substantially more biographical knowledge to give us) I find it interesting that the sentimental verses he wrote never seemed to get a rise out of his contemporaries. Very soon after his death, poetry not half so good but twice as emotional would be all the rage, and odd poems like Elegy and Eloisa to Abelard and even the second epitaph on the Stanton Harcourt Lovers would be rediscovered by later generations. Those folks (such as Wesley, who, we must remember, thought that The Man of Feeling was the greatest English novel and that Henry Brooke's The Fool of Quality was a rival to it) would have bad things to say about the Essay on Man and, especially, The Dunciad. I.e. I think "best Pope poem" tells us a lot about the critics and not so much about Pope, that we can, like H. R. Jauss, judge the historical moment of reception by its choice of text.

Thank you a hundred times over for the compliment. I've been on the verge of walking away, and a compliment like that does wonders for one's confidence. Wikipedia can be addictive like a love affair, with its fights, heart break, and making up and long weeks of staggering around wondering what you're doing with your time.

We need more folks willing to speak on Pope and that crowd. In particular, though, we desperately need anyone who can say anything intelligent at all about the 19th century, as we're woefully deficient with the Regency (except Austen), Romantics, and Victorians. Coverage there is spotty at best, with great detail and embarrassing silences alternating. I'm overjoyed to see someone adding in Pope. More is better. (I'm really a satire person, so I have to stretch (and research (gasp!)) to cover things like Augustan drama, and my own bias on poetry and prose of antagonism shows.) If there is anything I can do to help out, please let me know.

Also, it's probably a good idea to create something on your user page, even if it's just a line saying, "I disagree with having user pages," as that makes your signature line turn blue and will save you some hassles in the long run when sloppy administrators are looking at recent changes. (Everyone's sloppy some of the time. Most people are sloppy only very occasionally.) Thanks again. Geogre 03:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JC Bach

Sure no problem-- I heard a really great piece by JC Bach, the name of which I can't remember, so I wanted to learn a little more about him and I read that paragraph and I was really confused because the section headings were irrelevant to the content, and you can tell whoever wrote it absolutely loves JC Bach and is rather resentful that he isn't more popular. But hopefully that helps : ) Oh and one more thing-- Earlier I saw your comment about a need for a source concerning the statement of JC's 90 symphonies. I researched it on google a bit, and I couldn't find anything. Have you gotten any leads? AdamBiswanger1 16:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Adam--What I think I will have to do is manually count the listed works in my copy of the New Grove Bach Family, which has a J.C. Bach work list. I did a rough count a few days ago and did not get even close to 90--but I will have to check again when I have the time to spend ensuring my accuracy. Thanks for the great comments. -MollyTheCat 15:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bencovr.jpg ...

...has been replaced by a public domain image in the article on the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. As an unused fair-use image, it may be deleted seven days from now. Lupo 15:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book cover

This is to let you know that I've orphaned the fair use image Image:Emmacovr (Medium).jpg, and replaced it with Image:Emma title page 1909.jpg, an image in the public domain. For more information, see the book cover replacement project. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming Skeptic category up for deletion

Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming is up for deletion. If you would like to comment on this, feel free to do so here. Oren0 20:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 17 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Josephus's Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 19 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caius (presbyter), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Yomangani ^talk 11:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 11 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The School for Scandal, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

—Wknight94 (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 26 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Farquhar, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cheers, Daniel 12:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Jps1917.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jps1917.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox

Would you be interested in having this user box in your userpage. User:Jw21/deUBdomain/"supports" bush invasion Alex1996Ne (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Av7.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Av7.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Jps1917.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Jps1917.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Garion96 (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Jps1917.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Jps1917.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image which is not under a free license or in the public domain and it has not been used in any article for more than seven days.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Jps1917.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of New Cambridge Paragraph Bible

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]