User talk:Jpcohen

could you help me out by directing me to where i could access the archives. it would be much appreciated.MJKingofMusic (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Kenneth Patchen do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --  PNiddy  Go!  0 03:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Bob Dylan's 115th Dream, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Nk.sheridan   Talk 23:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. If you'd like to contest the deletion of the page, hop on over to deletion review and follow the few simple steps to having the page restored. Recreating the page with the hangon tag after it has been deleted does not give me the power to overturn the deletion, since I was not the closing administrator. Or, you can discuss it with Esanchez7587 one on one. Happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 03:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a big page isn't it? The relevant part of the page can be found [[1]]. Basically you're copying and pasting a template and filling in the blanks. Thanks. Keegan^talk 03:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My error. I thought I understood how to avoid all the conditions where MWT makes mistaken edits, but apparently there's some condition I haven't identified. I actually intended no changes at all. Regards, and thanks for addressing the issue nicely, Piano non troppo (talk) 05:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently did not read my addition carefully before "correcting" it; the entire point was that the Yeats quote is different from the Schwartz title, something that is constantly missed by people who "quote" Yeats as if he had used Schwartz's wording. Languagehat (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you still have not noticed the difference between "In Dreams Begin Responsibilities" (Schwartz) and "In dreams begins responsibility" (Yeats). The latter has singular subject and verb. By eliminating the latter, you destroyed the point of my addition. But I appreciate the fact that you have not changed it again. Languagehat (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read the reference before you refer to my edit as vandalism. You might also 'google' the Delmore effect. I didn't make it up. I don't mind the deletion. It's a minor issue at a minor article. I was merely adding information that seemed pertinent. Should you run across another of my edits, somewhere, anywhere, in the future, you can be assured that it will be in good faith and not vandalism.--Buster7 (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. Perfect. One gentleman meets another. --Buster7 (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page. — John Cardinal (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page! PL290 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to expand the Big Fish themes section. Unfortunately, I found the edits problematic and reverted to a previous version.[2] First of all, the reconciliation of the father-son relationship is the central, key theme according to the director, the author, and the majority of reviews, so I restored the information you changed. Second, you changed "creates extravagant myths about his past to hide himself, using storytelling as an avoidance mechanism" to "creates extravagant myths about his past to hide the truth about his ordinary and disappointing life, using these fantastical stories as an avoidance mechanism", which appears to go beyond what the sources actually say and avoids mentioning storytelling as a device, but redundantly refers to the extravagant myths for a second time as "fantastical stories." So, I reverted that as well. Third, it seems like you confused the central theme of the reconciliation with the the story of the father and son, and you go on to claim that the central plot focuses on the imagination of Bloom, and you compare the imaginative powers of the filmmaker with the character. The problem is that the source you cite, A. O. Scott, doesn't exactly say that, so this is really original research. Finally, you quote Scott who in his review points to the theme of the transforming powers of the imagination. I suppose we can expand the theme section to discuss this, but I would appreciate it if you would find more sources to support this idea and expand it. Just because one reviewer says this is the theme and doesn't expand on this idea, just isn't enough for us to write about, and we want to stick to significant, critical opinions that have currency in the literature. So, if you can find more about the theme, beyond simply, "The theme of Big Fish, adapted by John August from the novel by Daniel Wallace, is the transforming, sometimes bewildering power of the imagination, which would seem to be a natural subject for Mr. Burton",[3] that would be very helpful. Let me be clear: I think the theme section can be improved, and if you can talk more about the theme of the imagination beyond Scott, and at the same time, stick closely to the sources that you use, I will applaud your efforts. Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Robert Lowell. Not sure how that section managed to stay in there for so long. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Jpcohen (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your continuing useful edits to Lowell. Please do remember to add edit summaries. They are very helpful to other editors. Cheers. Span (talk) 00:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, It's good to see your continued edits of Lowell. I'd suggest replacing the "Quaker graveyard" fragment in the quote box with a piece from another poem, rather than cutting it completely, as it adds to page interest. Edit summaries are very useful and considerate of other editors so we can follow your edits, especially in the long term when you may no longer be connected to the page. Best wishes Span (talk) 12:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that I added an edit summary for the changes to which you're referring. I agree that the box quote looked nice, so if I think of a quote to add there that isn't already in the body of the article, I will do so. Best.Jpcohen (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great poetic fragment. Looks good. Edit summaries generally are helpful. Thanks for all the work. Span (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on James Merrill. Wikipedia:ISBN has info on the extensive ways that ISBNs are used on Wikipedia. They are useful for referencing specific books in citations, and as discussed in the article, not so good for books that have many editions as they point to a single one. 13 digit numbers are requested, if we have them. I agree that in the case of Merrill your removal of the ISBN was fine as there are many editions. Also red links are not 'dead links', only articles that have not been created yet. See Wikipedia:Red link. Often they are purposely there to encourage others the write articles on notable subjects. I hope the info is useful. A happy new year to you. Best wishes Span (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Span has given you a cupcake for your work on Robert Lowell. Say thank you by passing on the cupcake to someone whose work you appreciate.

Thank you, Span!Jpcohen (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dream songs cover image.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm the one who tried to remove it. Thank you for the note.Jpcohen (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your remarks here. Mick gold (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you and I tried to save the AIV page at the same time and your report got lost. I restored it and the signature bot thought it was my report. I wasn't trying to steal credit for your report and I left a note there saying so. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thank you for your efforts.Jpcohen (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpcohen, I hope all is well with you. I have queried the story about Bob Dylan's deal at the crossroads on the Talk page. Best wishes Mick gold (talk) 15:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clean up on William Carlos Williams. Good to see. Best wishes for the new year. Span (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Happy new year to you, too.Jpcohen (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Uptown Girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glee (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpcohen. I have responded at the article Talk Page. It's difficult, isn't it, trying to give adequate account, by example, in such a small article space. Especially with a poet, where the true intended full meaning of a poem cannot always really be conveyed with a mere excerpt. Incidentally, your comment that my changing "Those mills would later be referenced in poems like "The Orange Bears".." to "Those mills would later be referenced in such poems as "The Orange Bears" .." didn't seem to me to be "awkward phrasing", but just normal British English preferred grammar. If "poems like" is a more common construction in American English, then I am quite willing to not demur. But I am surprised. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jp. Thank you for your very kind words. It's my pleasure. I think the article is looking better now. But I'm sure there is plenty more that could be done. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Lots of good edits lately, I see. But a bit disappointed to see you have discarded the David Bedford musical link. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed the reference to the musical adaptation of the one poem because it isn't relevant to Patchen's life story. This isn't to say that it doesn't belong in the article at all; just not in the "Life" section. If it was mentioned in another section (like maybe "Tributes to Patchen" or some such section), I think that would be fine.Jpcohen (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Musical Collaborations and Recordings" section might actually work.Jpcohen (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word "the" should have been "a". But your re-write is perfectly fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am him. I finally decided to clean up that entry. I had hoped someone would do it before me. But I have some time and I wanted to learn the ropes. --Logatorial (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Well, welcome to Wikipedia, James. I think you're learning the ropes quite well actually.Jpcohen (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this image is okay to use now, 8XX - Weldon Kees - 1949.JPG. Also, that image of Kees sitting in his chair. What we can we do about that? I asked my sources about who took the image and no one has claimed credit. I used it in my book. I have other images, too, of course.--Logatorial (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the image of Weldon Kees, I would go to the Robert Lowell article. If you click on the photo of Lowell, you'll see the "fair use rationale" that was used to make the image fair game. I believe you could do the same for your image of Kees.Jpcohen (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jpcohen! I've posted a response to your request for input on the length of the Bob Dylan article's lead. Allreet (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ginsberg is looking good these days. Do you think he could do with a Peer Review? The article doesn't seem to me far off a GA. It's a bit cheeky of me to suggest it, as I don't have his biographies but it might be useful to see what work remains to be done. Congrats on all your good work. Best wishes Span (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for all the steady work you are putting into poetry articles across the board. It's all making a significant difference to the quality of the pages over time. Span (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Span! I really appreciate the acknowledgement. As far as the Ginsberg page goes, I'd have to look more closely at it. I don't think I've done very much work on the page or really read the entire piece in full, but I can certainly take a closer look and then tell you what I think. Best! Jpcohen (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never done a Peer Review. Could you explain how the process works? Also, looking over the Allen Ginsberg page, it's certainly very in depth and one of the better Wikipedia pages on a contemporary poet. I do think that the lede could use some revision, though. In particular, the section on the Six Gallery Reading, as important as it was to the Beat Movement, still shouldn't be in the lede of this article. I think it should have its own section within the body of the Ginsberg article (and should be well-identified as the "Six Gallery Reading"). Best!Jpcohen (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usually it's the page's main editor that nominates the article for peer review here under the 'arts' heading. They can get pretty backed up with requests so you could ask a long standing lit editor/old PR/GA hand to review it for you. Anyone can comment, but usually the review is to give a good sense of how ready the article is for GA nomination, ie what work is left to do. Once the review is in, the editor(s) go through the article and make the recommended changes and take it from there. That's my understanding. PR and GA are fair amounts of work so you'd only want to nominate if you thought the article was as ready as it could be. I was really just commenting that the article looks in pretty good shape to me (I don't have much knowledge of G's work or the biographies). There seems to be a move afoot to bring the best lit articles we have up to GA standard, those that are not far off anyone - low hanging fruit, as it were. This might be one of those. All the best Span (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, maybe I'll explain it further:

The way he was talking in the interview seemed pretty clear that he wasn't joking. He repeatedly said it would make him a hero, and that it would have been a great and wonderful thing. That doesn't sound like something that a jokester would say in regards to something like that. I know I wouldn't use that phraseology repeatedly in the article. Besides, if he were joking, don't you think he'd at least add in the relevant words such as "Just kidding!" "Joking aside..." or "In all seriousness, though..." How things are said is extremely key in regards to these sorts of things. And just because it was on a blog called Comics Journal (which going by the title and content, was probably more likely referring to "comics" as in "comic books or "newspaper comics") doesn't mean the person was joking. I could easily say, for example, that I wanted to commit a bank robbery on the David Letterman show, and yet I'd be genuinely serious if I actually said that. Another thing, it seemed serious enough to get Breitbart.com to cover it. Don't believe me? Look here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/25/Where-The-Wild-Things-Are-Author-Wanted-To-Assassinate-Bush-And-Cheney

Even if he was actually joking, it was extremely tasteless in either case. Remember when that Congressman jokingly implied a desire to assassinate President Clinton? That resulted in him being investigated and the media crying foul on it, even getting the Secret Service involved. If it was considered tasteless back then, it certainly is tasteless now. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented on the Maurice Sendak talk page, but I'll also respond here with the same message. I think that it's reasonably clear, if you read through the interview in question, that Sendak is joking, and that the interviewer understands that Sendak is joking (and the editor Martinevans123 appears to agree with me on this point). Whether the joke is in good taste or not is beside the point (and I think that this question gets into POV territory). More to the point, I think that this small snippet from the Comics Journal interview is pretty insignificant to the life of Maurice Sendak--yet it takes up a good chunk of the "Personal Life" section for this article.

Clearly this doesn't belong here. The "Personal Life" section should actually be about Sendak's personal life. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, I think the paragraph in question should be removed, and editors should limit the content of the section to significant information about Sendak's personal life.Jpcohen (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both IPs are the same person, per WP:DUCK: both are from Perth, Australia, and this revision history which is similar to many others. I really doubt a SPI is needed, because the lattest known IP, which still active, may be blocked and that's it. But if you believe it is appopiated you can try it. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I noticed that you undid my recent edit to this section.

I'm unsure what you meant by "change has errors"; you seem to be implying that my edit contained an error, but I don't know what this might be (I didn't revise the article's substantive informational content.) My edit was simply a minor improvement (in my opinion) to the article's language, which I felt was clunky and redundant.

I will not reintroduce my edit unless I hear back from you. Hopefully you are willing to clarify your objection.

Thanks. A7592 (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for clearing that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A7592 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpcohen, Could you please take another look at this edit? My edit which you undid, was an undo of the IP 211.108.125. edits which came immediately before mine, which among other things added many inappropriate definite articles like this. Paul August ☎ 18:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You think that adding "the" before God is good English? Paul August ☎ 01:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JP, thanks for all your ongoing and extensive work on literature articles. It's quite a body of good editing you have achieved over the years. I'm not very up on the arcane lore of WP categorisation; I tend to stay out of the arguments about what goes where, but, as this page explains "each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C". That is to say, if Plath is put in the cat of 'American women poets', she should not also go in 'poets', 'American poets', or 'American writers', which are parent categories. I think the idea is that if you are looking via category, you go to the parent category first, say, 'Poets', then you see there 'poets by Nationality'. You can then see 'American poets' and finally 'American women poets'. It's a 'tree based' approach and there is method in it all though it can seem rather Byzantine and obviously presents a myriad opportunities for endless rowing about how and why people are labelled as they are. I am no expert on this, but I hope that helps. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two things that might be of interest:

• Since Valerie's death, there's supposedly a long poem written in his last two or three years that hasn't been published that might see the light of day very soon.
• There's an older woman in England claims Eliot is her father and is knocking on a few doors...she would have been born at the time Viv was in the nuthouse.

I look forward to seeing how they materialize, moreso the poem.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am delighted to see you adding to Frost. The article is in a terrible state for such a high profile poet. Hope all is well with you. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, it could use a lot of work. Jpcohen (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you put Lowell up for GA review. It's a great article. I would just mention that everything in it has to be fully referenced to get GA and much of it isn't at the moment. I'm not sure how much work that represents. I hope the article does well. Best wishes Span (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jpcohen (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		Poetry Project Barnstar
		For all your hard work on behalf of WikiProject Poetry -- it's greatly appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the leading registered editor in terms of edits at Charles Dickens, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels#Derivative_works_and_cultural_references_templates regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Literary Barnstar
		Thanks for all the work you put in to literary articles. It's seen and appreciated. Best wishes Span (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to William Carlos Williams may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }}
• * ''[[Paterson (poem)|Paterson]]'' (Books I-V in one volume, (1963)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with cleaning up the Allen Tate article. I did subsequently change "political" to "literary"; this group was, like the Fugitives, interested primarily in poetry, as well as other forms of writing. As a group they were never overtly political, but their conservatism was really cultural. In contrast, the Fugitives were apolitical and essentially unconcerned with the kind of cultural conservatism that brought the Agrarians together. For them it was more criticism of poetry as pure poetry, without respect to cultural attitudes. I didn't want to get into a lengthy discussion of this distinction at Tate's article, so made just that change. (Also, the Fugitives were known just as the "Fugitives", so I removed the word "Poets" in that sentence.) Milkunderwood (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Civility Barnstar
		It is a pleasure when editors come together and make articles better through discussion and collaboration. Thank you for setting forth your argument clearly and then looking for the best way forward to improve the article on Dylan Thomas. Hats off! FruitMonkey (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...a Penzance herbalist's highly intoxicating brew..." Here's a funny anecdote, from Rayner Heppenstall, that might amuse you. It sums up Thomas very well, I think (in fact, they are all quite good): [4] Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pleasure to work with you, too, Fruitmonkey. Thank you for the acknowledgement.

Martinevans123, thank you for the amusing anecdote. Jpcohen (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Robert Lowell you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Jpcohen (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robert Lowell you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Robert Lowell for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Robert Lowell you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Robert Lowell for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Horrible, soulless bot!) Here am I in person, saying how sorry I am to have failed your article. I disagree with many of Col Henry's comments about the article in general - and have told him so - but I cannot escape the conclusion that the referencing as it stands just won't suffice for a Good Article. So sorry to be the bearer of bad news, and I mention with all sincerity that the article, which seems to me, referencing apart, a definitely fine one, sent me to my shelves to remind me how fine Lowell's works are. Tim riley (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've edited articles associated with T.S. Eliot and his works, I wanted to raise your attention to the FAC nomination for "A Song for Simeon", Eliot's 1928 poem. I would be grateful for your comments, suggestions, and critique there to improve the article. The FAC nomination can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/A Song for Simeon/archive1. Many thanks.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2013 (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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that you have made edits to the T.S. Eliot article before. I am interested in your comments on a recent change. A recent sub-section about the sculptor Jacob Epstein was made to the T.S. Eliot article. I deleted the addition and explained my reasons on the talk page.

Here is what was removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T._S._Eliot&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=877562978&oldid=877549994

Some have mentioned on the talk page that the Epstein material should be put back. Would you please look at the changes and make your opinion known on the Eliot talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:T._S._Eliot#Jacob_Epstein

WikiParker (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpcohen! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:50, Friday, February 4, 2022 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together