Wolffg

Welcome!

Hello Wolffg, 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! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  23:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Wolffg. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Wolffg~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

03:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Sorry I bothered you. You kindly noted my moving "Earthly Anecdote" to "Earthy Anecdote." I had the temerity to ask how I cld get a talk page reviewed and if I cld work on more that one at a time. I asked whether I wld be vandalizing if I entirely supplanted the article on Wallace Stevens' "The Snow Man" with text in my talk page. I also asked if you knew the Polish-American biologist and cat lover Jerry Coyne or his blog Why Evolution Is True. Today, though, I've looked at yr talk page and see you're a practicing Christian. You may not find Coyne, Stevens, or me congenial. I'll continue to feel my way into Wikipedia. Thank you, George Wolff

I've received an alert that you've emailed me but I suspect that whatever email address I gave has long since been deleted, so could you tell me what your email was about? Eustachiusz (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disappoint! One of the small housekeeping things I do is to help out with articles lacking categories, and that was what led me to yours on "Earthy Anecdote". I will look at the blog nevertheless - not all Christians are young-earth creationists. Best wishes with your Wikipedian career! Eustachiusz (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Snow Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collected Poems. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Earthy Anecdote (poem)

Hi Wolffg,

I've just come across Earthy Anecdote (poem), and this does not currently meet article standards, which require WP:no original research. I've tagged the article but haven't slashed text for the moment so that you can decide whether there is sufficient independent coverage that makes the poem individually WP:notable enough to justify a separate article from Harmonium (poetry collection), and if so to make the edits to fix the article (Please also see WP:Neutral point of view). Otherwise the article should be deleted.

This is by no means the only problematic article to do with Wallace Stevens. Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird and Le Monocle de Mon Oncle and others exhibit the same problems

Regards, ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I know. I'm sorry. I will try to make the articles factual and not new interpretations. But one cld argue that if an interpretation just points out formal details in a text, such as similarities or contrasts among images, that it is objective description, in an effort to help readers into the text with which they have sought information and help. A candle does resemble the sun, right?

Regards, George Wolff

Hi George,

• The following was put in the wrong place (my todo list) back in December and I didn't catch it:

Please allow me more time to revise my pages on Wallace Stevens' poems, "Earthy Anecdote" and "Thirteen Ways of Looking at a Blackbird." I will try to tie the original research to published works or remove it.

• You can get someone's attention when you respond by using their userlink (eg "[[User:Hydronium Hydroxide|Hydronium Hydroxide]]" to address me). You sign your post by using four tildes - "~~~~". If you sign your posts using the tildes then Template:Ping would also work.
• Critical interpretation of a poem's themes and/or imagery can be included in an article. For instance, see Burnt Norton, which has been rated a WP:Good Article. The key, though, is that it is not the personal critical interpretation of the editor, but the interpretation(s) of a range of (expert) critics, and Wikipedia should point readers at the sources of critical interpretation rather than providing critical interpretation. You can't cite Wikipedia, or even necessarily trust it. The article for Earthy Anecdote implies that it attracted significant critical attention, but the only critical source is Strom, and it's not clear how much of the article is her, and how much is your interpretation. Inline WP:CITATIONS would help.
• The notability guideline for individual poems is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poetry#Notability. In the absence of further edits by you, I'll add tags -- apologies for the tagbomb -- and edit it down a bit. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hydronium Thanks for the help. I've been working hard on a long article on several Stevens poems, wh I hope to place in the Stevens Journal and then cite it in Wikipedia. I will try to get back to "13 Ways of Looking at Blackbirds" soon in Wikipedia. George Wolff 02:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)wolffgGeorge Wolff 02:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi George. My reaction is somewhere between "um", "ermmm" and "urgh". Self-citation is possible, but if you need to write an article to be published in the Stevens-specific journal, then that makes it seem doubtful that the poem has sufficient individual notability separate from the Harmonium collection. On the other hand, if you collate a bunch of significant coverage (ie: more than just a paragraph or two in the course of covering the collection) from a variety of authors while researching your article, then using those reliable and secondary sources, and possibly a limited amount of citation from your article itself, would be reasonable. That said, I've had a bit of a dig, and it does look like that coverage of the individual poem sufficient for an article separate from Harmonium exists, even without an additional article or original research. Particularly useful would be where the source is broader in focus than just Stevens, such as in Poetry, Modernism, and an Imperfect World by Sean Pryor, or Darwin's Bards: British and American Poetry in the Age of Evolution by John Holmes. There's some sources which mention the use of "firecat" by Hart Crane in the Indiana section of The Bridge (long poem), so a brief mention of that could be warranted. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to make the corrections needed in "Apostrophe to Vincentine." The title of poem is "Apostrophe TO Vincentine" There are many typos in the version of the poem in the sidebar. The article title shld be "Apostrophe to Vincentine" (poem).