Talk:Easy Virtue (play)

Press notices

I have removed the statement about the notices of the press in general and The Times in particular for The Vortex. Though Coward later said, "If I had really cared about good press notices, I should have shot myself in the twenties," he said in Present Indicative, of The Vortex, "The Press notices the next day were, on the whole, enthusiastic," and those I can lay hands on bear this out: The Daily Mirror called it "an interesting and, in some respects, a remarkable comedy" (17 December 1924, p. 2); The Manchester Guardian had some reservations, but described the play as "genuinely and deeply interesting" (26 November 1924, p. 12); The Observer also had reservations but thought parts of the play "the best thing Mr. Coward has yet done in playwriting."(30 November 1924, p. 11); The Times said of it, "It is a study that has wit, observation, and a sincerity, leaping out between flippances, which is its peculiar merit." (26 November 1924, p. 8.) Tim riley (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

unusual format

I think this page needs a tocright Tom Pippens (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you think that? It's unusual in Wikipedia, and I do not see how it helps the article. Please do not persist in doing it unless you find a consensus of editors who agree with you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not see how you revert helps the helps the article. That is why I think this page needs a tocright. What have you got against WP:Unusual? Tom Pippens (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The position that you are floating the TOC to appears to violate WP:TOC and does not help the article. You have not advanced a rational argument for moving the usual position, and your citation to WP:Unusual is inapposite. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

(partial EC) Actually I do have a strong point of view on this subject. As a user, when I hit a page, I want to absorb as much info I can without having to make a second click. A TOCright allows this to happen. In this particular article I get to read Background without having to make a second click. I personally have no disabilities (other than laziness) but I am also going to advocate my approach on behalf of both the disabled and the less computer literate. I presume this answer is sufficiently rational. Tom Pippens (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers that the article is fine as it is. Jack1956 (talk) 07:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

...Erm...voting for your mate, especially when it involves an article that you have not edited, is not consensus building. I have read WP:TOC - how one can violate a Help Section I do not know. It states that screen readers will miss any text placed between the TOC and the first heading negating my stance on behalf of the disabled (though not the lazy and Computer illiterate). Anyways I wont be reverting, so you can both take you dicks off the table. Tom Pippens (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an unpleasant and unnecessary comment. I have not edited the article , but I can read, and I think it's fine as it is. Abusive remarks such as the one you made could get you barred from editing here. Try and keep things civil. Jack1956 (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The play deals primarily with hypocrisy....I guess you can read the tag midway through the article. Do you think it is fine to insult my intelligence? Tom Pippens (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC)