This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I like the examples you're giving for the poetry definitions - they help a lot. --MichaelTinkler

Red - Welcome to the Wikipedia! I really like it when people take on a pet topic, as you have done with poetry. I've noticed a lot of short, one-or-two line entries that seem to be not much more than simple definitions. Are you planning to expand these? BTW, I've been going through and labelling them as stubs (the reason for this labelling is that they turn up in the search engine easily if someone searches for "stub"). - MMGB

I have to concur with Manning, here. Your desire to help is exemplary but the stubs are not. Please see Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the perfect stub article. -- LMS

I hope to return to poetry in the fairly near future (wiki is more or less a winter project with me). I also devote some time to law. And, although I know that wiki is not a dictionary I think it is important to give definitions from time to time in aid of the larger conversation and that is particularly so in field such as poety and law (and most others, I suspect). When I read other wiki areas for knowledge, the well written stub is enormously helpful to my understanding of the topic. --Red Bowen

Greetings, Red. I've been reviewing your various contributions on legal topics, which are all first rate. Keep up the good work! -- NetEsq 20:29, 1 December 2002 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of painters by name is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of painters by name until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GZWDer ( talk) 17:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 01:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	I appreciate your work on Wikipedia's neutrality point of view and am happy that it was not deleted and is now formally recognized Kristina Davis ( talk) 15:16, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Dorothy Parker has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 ( talk) 20:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)