This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Didier Olmstead ( talk) 20:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)I have added a reference to the Radio Play on CBS Radio Mystery Theater for their production of an adaptation of the story "Berenice". The radio play is now available for listening in the public domain, and it is also listed on wikipedia in the CBS Radio Mystery schedule for that year.
Dicebant mihi sodales si sepulchrum amicae visitarem, curas meas aliquantulum fore levatas. From Ibn Zaiat. Being only half of the poem, the phrase has no pointe (well, in the context of Berenice, it has one). Here is the missing part: Dixi autem, an ideo aliud praeter hoc pectus habet sepulchrum?
My companions said to me, if I would visit the grave of my friend, I might somewhat alleviate my worries. I answered "could she be buried elsewhere than in my heart?"
This citation was found in "The Works of Sir William Jones, Vol. 2", London 1799, probably where Poe found it. Riyadi ( talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I judge the lead to this article overlong and rather poorly written. I made a major edit to it which was reverted. The user who did the reversion then tried to bring back some of my changes and did this sloppily, leaving unfinished and repetitive sentences. Besides, the very progress of first reverting and then incorporating some of the reverted changes goes against Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I hope this won't be regarded as ad hominem, but judging by the user's name and personal page, I judge reversions like this to be personally biased towards keeping one's own writing intact in Wikipedia.
The reasons provided for the reversion were it being original research (although I deemed it a reinterpretation of the "plot summary" section already in the article) and an ambiguous quotation from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section whose use in relevance to that edit I consider a fallacy.
I made a further edit, more minor and authoritative, which hasn't been reverted as of yet, and leaving this on the talk page for others to consider in the future, for me the matter is closed. P. T. Tabayi ( talk) 02:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Didier Olmstead ( talk) 20:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)I have added a reference to the Radio Play on CBS Radio Mystery Theater for their production of an adaptation of the story "Berenice". The radio play is now available for listening in the public domain, and it is also listed on wikipedia in the CBS Radio Mystery schedule for that year.
Dicebant mihi sodales si sepulchrum amicae visitarem, curas meas aliquantulum fore levatas. From Ibn Zaiat. Being only half of the poem, the phrase has no pointe (well, in the context of Berenice, it has one). Here is the missing part: Dixi autem, an ideo aliud praeter hoc pectus habet sepulchrum?
My companions said to me, if I would visit the grave of my friend, I might somewhat alleviate my worries. I answered "could she be buried elsewhere than in my heart?"
This citation was found in "The Works of Sir William Jones, Vol. 2", London 1799, probably where Poe found it. Riyadi ( talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I judge the lead to this article overlong and rather poorly written. I made a major edit to it which was reverted. The user who did the reversion then tried to bring back some of my changes and did this sloppily, leaving unfinished and repetitive sentences. Besides, the very progress of first reverting and then incorporating some of the reverted changes goes against Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I hope this won't be regarded as ad hominem, but judging by the user's name and personal page, I judge reversions like this to be personally biased towards keeping one's own writing intact in Wikipedia.
The reasons provided for the reversion were it being original research (although I deemed it a reinterpretation of the "plot summary" section already in the article) and an ambiguous quotation from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section whose use in relevance to that edit I consider a fallacy.
I made a further edit, more minor and authoritative, which hasn't been reverted as of yet, and leaving this on the talk page for others to consider in the future, for me the matter is closed. P. T. Tabayi ( talk) 02:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)