George Dance, you have the publication date wrong on Ellwood Roberts' "July" poem

[NancyGene]

You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895. There is also no comma after "Quakerism" in the title. If you are going to be a source for information, you really should try to be accurate.

"Lyrics of Quakerism and Other Poems," Ellwood Roberts, 1895:
"Songs of Summer"

"JULY."

"Month of sultry noons and nights!
Fields are parched for want of rain ;
But thou hast thy own delights,
Luscious fruits and golden grain.
Ripened wheat in heavy sheaves,
Merry workmen store away,
Pile in barns above the eaves,
On the mows of fragrant hay.

'Tis the bright noon of the year,
Overhead the hot sun gleams,
Through the quivering atmosphere.
Pierce all day his ardent beams.
Dewy night and misty morn
Follow sunset bright and clear ;
In the field the waving corn
Sends aloft its stalk and ear.

Thunder-storms at midday rise,
Veiling noon in deepest gloom,
O'er the clouds the lightning flies.
How its flashes all illume !
Swiflily comes the dashing rain —
Hillsides perishing with thirst,
Drink, and are refreshed again ;
Streams their limits quickly burst.

Gone the shower, the floods recede,
Brightly shines the sun again ;
Heat and moisture fill the need.
Rich growth covers all the plain.
In the orchard apples show
Rich tints borrowed from the sun ;
Mid the bright green leaves they glow,
Here and there a luscious one.

Month of sultry noons and nights !
Fields are parched for lack of rain.
But thou hast thy rare delights,
Sweet ripe fruits and golden grain.
Busy, languid harvest time,
Days to Nature's lovers dear ;
Summer yet is in her prime.
And her glory crowns the year."

[George Dance]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:16:46 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895.

Thanks. It's been fixed on both of his poems.

<snip>

[NancyGene]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:28:16 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:16:46 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:

> > You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895. There is also no comma after "Quakerism" in the title. If you are going to be a source for information, you really should try to be accurate.

> Thanks. It's been fixed on both of his poems.

Great, but you didn't fix the (wrong) comma that you inserted into the book's title. You should try to be 100% accurate instead of <50%. You really need a good proof reader and editor.

> "Lyrics of Quakerism and Other Poems," Ellwood Roberts, 1895:
"Songs of Summer"

"JULY."

"Month of sultry noons and nights!
Fields are parched for want of rain ;
But thou hast thy own delights,
Luscious fruits and golden grain.
Ripened wheat in heavy sheaves,
Merry workmen store away,
Pile in barns above the eaves,
On the mows of fragrant hay.

'Tis the bright noon of the year,
Overhead the hot sun gleams,
Through the quivering atmosphere.
Pierce all day his ardent beams.
Dewy night and misty morn
Follow sunset bright and clear ;
In the field the waving corn
Sends aloft its stalk and ear.

Thunder-storms at midday rise,
Veiling noon in deepest gloom,
O'er the clouds the lightning flies.
How its flashes all illume !

Swiftly comes the dashing rain —

[NancyGene]

George Dance, Ellwood Roberts contacted us and asked us to request that you remove his poems from your blog. You are testing his pacifism.

[George Dance]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:46:21 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:28:16 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:16:46 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895. There is also no comma after "Quakerism" in the title. If you are going to be a source for information, you really should try to be accurate.
> > Thanks. It's been fixed on both of his poems.

> Great, but you didn't fix the (wrong) comma that you inserted into the book's title.

Sounds like you're getting cocky. You should realize I didn't take your word for the date; I checked it against the PPP article. Publication date is a matter of fact, and I'm always happy to correct those when I have a reliable sourse (like PPP).

OTOH, how a title should appear in another work is not a matter of fact, but a style decision. The title on the front page of the book is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM / AND / OTHER POEMS". Both PPP and PPB use a comma, and give the subtitle ("and other poems") in lower case.

You should try to be 100% accurate instead of <50%. You really need a good proof reader and editor.

I can understand why you've be looking for a new gig, but I'll have to refuse your offer. That's not a comment on your competence, BTW; I've given up trying to enter into professional relationships with people I can't trust. But thanks for your interest in the position.

<snip>

[George Dance]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:25:07 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:

> George Dance, Ellwood Roberts contacted us and asked us to request that you remove his poems from your blog. You are testing his pacifism.

NastyGoon, Ellwood Roberts has been dead for over 100 years.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:28:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:16:46 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>

> > You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895.

> Thanks. It's been fixed on both of his poems.
>

> <snip>

Nice to see that Nancy Gene is good for something here.

🙂

[NancyGene]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:46:18 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:46:21 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:28:16 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:16:46 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895. There is also no comma after "Quakerism" in the title. If you are going to be a source for information, you really should try to be accurate.
> > > Thanks. It's been fixed on both of his poems.
>
> > Great, but you didn't fix the (wrong) comma that you inserted into the book's title.
> Sounds like you're getting cocky. You should realize I didn't take your word for the date; I checked it against the PPP article. Publication date is a matter of fact, and I'm always happy to correct those when I have a reliable sourse (like PPP).

(PS: "Source" is not spelled "sourse.") You vet your references by checking your own site? That wouldn't stand up in court. You should have looked up the book instead of looking at PPP, which seems to be wrong a good percentage of the time.

Check out: https://imgur.com/gallery/iGZksT1
We know that you don't trust the Library of Congress, but then it doesn't trust you either.

>
> OTOH, how a title should appear in another work is not a matter of fact, but a style decision. The title on the front page of the book is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM / AND / OTHER POEMS". Both PPP and PPB use a comma, and give the subtitle ("and other poems") in lower case.

That's not how it appears on the cover of the 1895 (not 1885) publication. See: https://imgur.com/gallery/iGZksT1
Just because you decided to do it doesn't make it correct. If we decided to write "Gone, With, The, Wind" as the title of Margaret Mitchell's book, would that be acceptable?

> You should try to be 100% accurate instead of <50%. You really need a good proof reader and editor.
> I can understand why you've be looking for a new gig, but I'll have to refuse your offer.

We knew that you would go there, because it is obvious, and that's what George Dance does. We maintain that you need a good editor and proofreader, as does your only client. There are too many dumb mistakes being made, and you and your client are being poorly represented.

> That's not a comment on your competence, BTW; I've given up trying to enter into professional relationships with people I can't trust. But thanks for your interest in the position.

Do you have any imagination, George Dance? Please consult your wife about positions.

[Michael Pendragon]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:46:18 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:46:21 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:28:16 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:16:46 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895. There is also no comma after "Quakerism" in the title. If you are going to be a source for information, you really should try to be accurate.
> > > Thanks. It's been fixed on both of his poems.
>
> > Great, but you didn't fix the (wrong) comma that you inserted into the book's title.
> Sounds like you're getting cocky. You should realize I didn't take your word for the date; I checked it against the PPP article. Publication date is a matter of fact, and I'm always happy to correct those when I have a reliable sourse (like PPP).
>
> OTOH, how a title should appear in another work is not a matter of fact, but a style decision. The title on the front page of the book is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM / AND / OTHER POEMS". Both PPP and PPB use a comma, and give the subtitle ("and other poems") in lower case.
>

Since you're not publishing the poem, but reprinting it from a book, it is imperative that you list the book's title correctly, as it serves to identify your source. The book's correct title is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM and OTHER POEMS."

Using ALL CAPS is a stylistic call, however, 1) regular rules regarding capital letters in titles apply ("Lyrics of Quakerism and Other Poems"), and 2) regular rules of punctuation also apply (no comma).

Also, when copying a book's title, unless there is a blatant punctuation error, the punctuation used in the original should be followed (again, no comma).

I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a footnote or bibliography.

[ME]

Ping. Ping Ping, dance…….


“What Michael said!!!!!”

[ME]

[George Dance]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 7:21:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:46:18 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:46:21 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:28:16 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:16:46 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895. There is also no comma after "Quakerism" in the title. If you are going to be a source for information, you really should try to be accurate.
> > > > Thanks. It's been fixed on both of his poems.
> >
> > > Great, but you didn't fix the (wrong) comma that you inserted into the book's title.
> > Sounds like you're getting cocky. You should realize I didn't take your word for the date; I checked it against the PPP article. Publication date is a matter of fact, and I'm always happy to correct those when I have a reliable sourse (like PPP).
> >
> > OTOH, how a title should appear in another work is not a matter of fact, but a style decision. The title on the front page of the book is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM / AND / OTHER POEMS". Both PPP and PPB use a comma, and give the subtitle ("and other poems") in lower case.
> >
> Since you're not publishing the poem, but reprinting it from a book, it is imperative that you list the book's title correctly, as it serves to identify your source. The book's correct title is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM and OTHER POEMS."
>
> Using ALL CAPS is a stylistic call, however, 1) regular rules regarding capital letters in titles apply ("Lyrics of Quakerism and Other Poems"), and 2) regular rules of punctuation also apply (no comma).
>
> Also, when copying a book's title, unless there is a blatant punctuation error, the punctuation used in the original should be followed (again, no comma).

> I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a footnote or bibliography.

Michael, I realize that you're just trying to support your "colleague" again, but your story that the comma prevents anyone from finding the book is just the usual monkeyshit. Here, let's prove that; let's do a search for "Lyrics of Quakerism, and other poems":
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Lyrics+of+Quakerism%2C+and+other+poems&sxsrf=AB5stBh6QbasKun18DuuKMnLET_IhyuJug%3A1689468994584&ei=QkCzZOqjI5uoptQP-7ybuA8&ved=0ahUKEwjqzJ-6gpKAAxUblIkEHXveBvcQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Lyrics+of+Quakerism%2C+and+other+poems&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJEx5cmljcyBvZiBRdWFrZXJpc20sIGFuZCBvdGhlciBwb2VtczIEECMYJ0jaSVD-DVjGPnAAeACQAQCYAfcIoAGtEKoBCzEuMi41LTEuMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIHECMYsAMYJ8ICBxAjGLACGCfiAwQYASBBiAYBkAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Notice how every source of the book comes up, regardless of how the publisher or site chose to capitalize or punctuate any of it. Now, please cut the crap.

[Will Dockery]

Nancy Gene should look up "public domain."

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Yes, let's cut the crap.

I copy pasted the title/info from the first post in this thread, and this is the first result that I found: an image of the book's cover:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lyrics_of_Quakerism_and_Other_Poems/wsgBAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover

This is a photograph of the 1895 first edition, and in fact, the entire book can be viewed page by page by clicking the arrows.

That is the one that I was going by, and I've no doubt that NancyGene was going by it as well.

As per your claim that I'd said "the comma prevents anyone from finding the book," it is blatantly false. It's yet another of your tiresome "straw man" arguments, wherein you rephrase someone else's statement just enough to subtly change its meaning. Here is what I actually wrote:

"I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a footnote or bibliography."

Obviously printing the *correct* title of a book facilitates a reader's ability to locate it. Printing it incorrectly may not stop them from locating it, but having knowledge of the correct title is certainly not a hindrance. More importantly, my actual statement also says that having the correct title is important for listing a book in a bibliography. Are you going to try to dismiss that as "monkeyshit" as well?

I have worked, professionally, as an assistant editor with a major Manhattan-based publishing house (Wolters-Kluwer). I also attended several graduate college courses (at both CUNY and NYU) in editing, proofreading, and book production while working there, and am trying to share some of the knowledge and experience I gained with you. I have proofread dozens of bibliographies, and am telling you that one does not insert commas into a book title, or set a supposed "subtitle" in lower case.

Since you have set yourself up as an independent editor/publisher, it is helpful to be aware of such things. Rather than dismissing legitimate corrections as "monkeyshit," you should correct them on your blog and keep them in mind for future reference.

I had two years of on-the-job training (along with the college courses) in order to advance from an editorial assistant to an assistant editor position. There's a lot to learn, and it's not the sort of thing that one can pick up simply from reading published books.

I don't know what experience NancyGene has, but I do know that she possesses the skills to be a successful proofreader. When she offers you advice and corrections, you would be wise to take them.

[Michael Pendragon]

Damn, Donkey!

Even for you, that's a stupid thing to say.

[George Dance]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 11:29:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:59:47 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 7:21:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:46:18 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:46:21 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:28:16 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:16:46 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895. There is also no comma after "Quakerism" in the title. If you are going to be a source for information, you really should try to be accurate.
> > > > > > Thanks. It's been fixed on both of his poems.
> > > >
> > > > > Great, but you didn't fix the (wrong) comma that you inserted into the book's title.
> > > > Sounds like you're getting cocky. You should realize I didn't take your word for the date; I checked it against the PPP article. Publication date is a matter of fact, and I'm always happy to correct those when I have a reliable sourse (like PPP).
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, how a title should appear in another work is not a matter of fact, but a style decision. The title on the front page of the book is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM / AND / OTHER POEMS". Both PPP and PPB use a comma, and give the subtitle ("and other poems") in lower case.
> > > >
> > > Since you're not publishing the poem, but reprinting it from a book, it is imperative that you list the book's title correctly, as it serves to identify your source. The book's correct title is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM and OTHER POEMS."
> > >
> > > Using ALL CAPS is a stylistic call, however, 1) regular rules regarding capital letters in titles apply ("Lyrics of Quakerism and Other Poems"), and 2) regular rules of punctuation also apply (no comma).
> > >
> > > Also, when copying a book's title, unless there is a blatant punctuation error, the punctuation used in the original should be followed (again, no comma).
> >
> > > I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a footnote or bibliography.
> > Michael, I realize that you're just trying to support your "colleague" again, but your story that the comma prevents anyone from finding the book is just the usual monkeyshit. Here, let's prove that; let's do a search for "Lyrics of Quakerism, and other poems":
> > https://www.google.ca/search?q=Lyrics+of+Quakerism%2C+and+other+poems&sxsrf=AB5stBh6QbasKun18DuuKMnLET_IhyuJug%3A1689468994584&ei=QkCzZOqjI5uoptQP-7ybuA8&ved=0ahUKEwjqzJ-6gpKAAxUblIkEHXveBvcQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Lyrics+of+Quakerism%2C+and+other+poems&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJEx5cmljcyBvZiBRdWFrZXJpc20sIGFuZCBvdGhlciBwb2VtczIEECMYJ0jaSVD-DVjGPnAAeACQAQCYAfcIoAGtEKoBCzEuMi41LTEuMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIHECMYsAMYJ8ICBxAjGLACGCfiAwQYASBBiAYBkAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
> >
> > Notice how every source of the book comes up, regardless of how the publisher or site chose to capitalize or punctuate any of it. Now, please cut the crap.
> Yes, let's cut the crap.
>
> I copy pasted the title/info from the first post in this thread, and this is the first result that I found: an image of the book's cover:
>
> https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lyrics_of_Quakerism_and_Other_Poems/wsgBAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover
>
> This is a photograph of the 1895 first edition, and in fact, the entire book can be viewed page by page by clicking the arrows.

<yawn> I have a copy of that edition linked in the PPP article on Roberts:
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433066571716&view=1up&seq=13

> That is the one that I was going by, and I've no doubt that NancyGene was going by it as well.

> As per your claim that I'd said "the comma prevents anyone from finding the book," it is blatantly false. It's yet another of your tiresome "straw man" arguments, wherein you rephrase someone else's statement just enough to subtly change its meaning. Here is what I actually wrote:
>
> "I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
footnote or bibliography."

Note what I underlined. You were trying to tell me that by using a comma (and, in fairness, the lower case on "and other poems") I was somehow keeping "Readers and scholars" from locating the book.

> Obviously printing the *correct* title of a book facilitates a reader's ability to locate it. Printing it incorrectly may not stop them from locating it, but having knowledge of the correct title is certainly not a hindrance.

As I showed you by giving you the link, using the title the way it appears on the wiki would not "hinder" anyone in the slightest from finding and reading the book. But I'd hoped you'd clicked through and read what I linked as well. Since you don't seem to have, I'll paste that in. Here's how the book is being referred to by editors and publishers:

Lyrics of Quakerism: And Other Poems
Lyrics of Quakerism and other poems
Lyrics Of Quakerism: & Other Poems
Lyrics Of Quakerism And Other Poems
Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
Lyrics of Quakerism : & Other Poems

Lyrics of Quakerism, and other poems

Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
Lyrics of Quakerism

Those are stylistic decisions, and it is indeed monkeyshit for you to claim they're all incorrect.

> More importantly, my actual statement also says that having the correct title is important for listing a book in a bibliography. Are you going to try to dismiss that as "monkeyshit" as well?

What I'd dismiss as "monkeyshit" is your calling all the above "incorrect" titles. I could probably give you a list with just as much variations from bibliographies. I'm not going to, since I'm already spending too much time on your monkeyshines, but I would like you to be aware of the fact that punctuation and capitalization is not uniform across the internet or (as I know, because I use WorldCat in writing mine) across all libraries.

> I have worked, professionally, as an assistant editor with a major Manhattan-based publishing house (Wolters-Kluwer). I also attended several graduate college courses (at both CUNY and NYU) in editing, proofreading, and book production while working there, and am trying to share some of the knowledge and experience I gained with you. I have proofread dozens of bibliographies, and am telling you that one does not insert commas into a book title, or set a supposed "subtitle" in lower case.

I have created thousands of bibliographies on PPP, including those for articles from Wikipedia etc., and in the process have read at least five times as many. In the decade I've been doing that, I've noticed a wide variety in stylistic conventions -- are you aware, for example, that some places capitalize *only* the initial letter of a book's title? -- and chosen the ones I prefer.

> Since you have set yourself up as an independent editor/publisher, it is helpful to be aware of such things. Rather than dismissing legitimate corrections as "monkeyshit," you should correct them on your blog and keep them in mind for future reference.

I'm sorry to prick your exaggerated sense of self-importance again, Michael, but as I keep telling you: I do not consider you, NastyGoon, the Chimp, the MEatpuppet, or the Asstroll to be reliable sources of information on anything, and I am not going to start making changes on blog or wiki simply because you call them "correct".

> I had two years of on-the-job training (along with the college courses) in order to advance from an editorial assistant to an assistant editor position. There's a lot to learn, and it's not the sort of thing that one can pick up simply from reading published books.

I'm sure there is a lot to learn; but IMO the best way to learn how to write a bibliography is precisely by reading bibliographies.

> I don't know what experience NancyGene has, but I do know that she possesses the skills to be a successful proofreader. When she offers you advice and corrections, you would be wise to take them.

I'm sure NG appreciates the slurp. But you can do better than that for them. For one thing, stop the constant misgendering.

[Will Dockery]

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 11:31:58 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:47:04 PM UTC-4, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:47:57 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:25:07 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > >
> > > > George Dance, Ellwood Roberts contacted us and asked us to request that you remove his poems from your blog. You are testing his pacifism.
> > > NastyGoon, Ellwood Roberts has been dead for over 100 years.
> > Nancy Gene should look up "public domain."
> Damn

Troll much, Pendragon?

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

That is not true, Plagiarist George.

I said that "I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a footnote or bibliography."

Listing a title incorrectly is not particularly helpful for a reader who is attempting to locate a book; and your inaccurate information could easily get copied into a bibliography.

But what is the point of continuing with your straw man? You've been called on it. What more is there to say?

Again, one should think that an editor would want to list his sources correctly. Are you saying that you don't care whether your sources are listed so?

> > Obviously printing the *correct* title of a book facilitates a reader's ability to locate it. Printing it incorrectly may not stop them from locating it, but having knowledge of the correct title is certainly not a hindrance.
> As I showed you by giving you the link, using the title the way it appears on the wiki would not "hinder" anyone in the slightest from finding and reading the book. But I'd hoped you'd clicked through and read what I linked as well. Since you don't seem to have, I'll paste that in. Here's how the book is being referred to by editors and publishers:
>

I didn't say that it was a hindrance, Plagiarist George. You really need to learn how to read.

I said that listing it correctly was *not* a hindrance.

When one is seeking an original source, having the correct information is more helpful than having only partially correct information. You do agree with that, don't you?

> Lyrics of Quakerism: And Other Poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism and other poems
> Lyrics Of Quakerism: & Other Poems
> Lyrics Of Quakerism And Other Poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism : & Other Poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism, and other poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism
>
> Those are stylistic decisions, and it is indeed monkeyshit for you to claim they're all incorrect.

No, Plagiarist George. Those are examples of ignorance and/or sloppy editing.

One does not capitalize "And" but leave "other" in lowercase. Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be?

For the correct "style," one goes to the original manuscript (as NancyGene and I have done). The above are examples of misinformation.

> > More importantly, my actual statement also says that having the correct title is important for listing a book in a bibliography. Are you going to try to dismiss that as "monkeyshit" as well?
> What I'd dismiss as "monkeyshit" is your calling all the above "incorrect" titles. I could probably give you a list with just as much variations from bibliographies. I'm not going to, since I'm already spending too much time on your monkeyshines, but I would like you to be aware of the fact that punctuation and capitalization is not uniform across the internet or (as I know, because I use WorldCat in writing mine) across all libraries.
>

Again, the internet is not a scholarly source. The internet contains various posts/blogs/sites run by ignoramuses, illiterates, morons, and other denizens of "Shadowville."

The correct title appears on the cover page of the first edition of the book. Any variations on that title are wrong.

> > I have worked, professionally, as an assistant editor with a major Manhattan-based publishing house (Wolters-Kluwer). I also attended several graduate college courses (at both CUNY and NYU) in editing, proofreading, and book production while working there, and am trying to share some of the knowledge and experience I gained with you. I have proofread dozens of bibliographies, and am telling you that one does not insert commas into a book title, or set a supposed "subtitle" in lower case.
> I have created thousands of bibliographies on PPP, including those for articles from Wikipedia etc., and in the process have read at least five times as many. In the decade I've been doing that, I've noticed a wide variety in stylistic conventions -- are you aware, for example, that some places capitalize *only* the initial letter of a book's title? -- and chosen the ones I prefer.
>

It isn't a matter of preference, Plagiarist George; it's a matter of what is correct.

Here is what William Strunk wrote in "The Elements of Style":

Titles. For the titles of literary works, scholarly usage prefers italics with capitalized initials. The usage of editors and publishers varies, some using italics with capitalized initials, others using Roman with capitalized initials and with or without quotation marks. Use italics (indicated in manuscript by underscoring), except in writing for a periodical that follows a different practice. Omit initial A or The from titles when you place the possessive before them.

The Iliad; the Odyssey; As You Like It; To a Skylark; The Newcomes; A Tale of Two Cities; Dickens's Tale of Two Cities.

[END QUOTE]

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37134/37134-h/37134-h.htm

> > Since you have set yourself up as an independent editor/publisher, it is helpful to be aware of such things. Rather than dismissing legitimate corrections as "monkeyshit," you should correct them on your blog and keep them in mind for future reference.
> I'm sorry to prick your exaggerated sense of self-importance again, Michael, but as I keep telling you: I do not consider you, NastyGoon, the Chimp, the MEatpuppet, or the Asstroll to be reliable sources of information on anything, and I am not going to start making changes on blog or wiki simply because you call them "correct".
>

Or, in the immortal words of Mr. Thomas Gray, "where ignorance is bliss,/'Tis folly to be wise."

> > I had two years of on-the-job training (along with the college courses) in order to advance from an editorial assistant to an assistant editor position. There's a lot to learn, and it's not the sort of thing that one can pick up simply from reading published books.
> I'm sure there is a lot to learn; but IMO the best way to learn how to write a bibliography is precisely by reading bibliographies.

Spoken like an "editor" who has never set up, proofread, or edited a bibliography, professionally.

Again, one feels inspired to quote Mr. Gray.

> > I don't know what experience NancyGene has, but I do know that she possesses the skills to be a successful proofreader. When she offers you advice and corrections, you would be wise to take them.
> I'm sure NG appreciates the slurp. But you can do better than that for them. For one thing, stop the constant misgendering.

Deflection noted.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 2:49:43 AM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 1:41:13 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 11:29:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:59:47 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 7:21:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:46:18 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:46:21 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:28:16 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:16:46 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > > > You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895. There is also no comma after "Quakerism" in the title. If you are going to be a source for information, you really should try to be accurate.
> > > > > > > > Thanks. It's been fixed on both of his poems.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Great, but you didn't fix the (wrong) comma that you inserted into the book's title.
> > > > > > Sounds like you're getting cocky. You should realize I didn't take your word for the date; I checked it against the PPP article. Publication date is a matter of fact, and I'm always happy to correct those when I have a reliable sourse (like PPP).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OTOH, how a title should appear in another work is not a matter of fact, but a style decision. The title on the front page of the book is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM / AND / OTHER POEMS". Both PPP and PPB use a comma, and give the subtitle ("and other poems") in lower case.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Since you're not publishing the poem, but reprinting it from a book, it is imperative that you list the book's title correctly, as it serves to identify your source. The book's correct title is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM and OTHER POEMS."
> > > > >
> > > > > Using ALL CAPS is a stylistic call, however, 1) regular rules regarding capital letters in titles apply ("Lyrics of Quakerism and Other Poems"), and 2) regular rules of punctuation also apply (no comma).
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, when copying a book's title, unless there is a blatant punctuation error, the punctuation used in the original should be followed (again, no comma).
> > > >
> > > > > I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a footnote or bibliography.
> > > > Michael, I realize that you're just trying to support your "colleague" again, but your story that the comma prevents anyone from finding the book is just the usual monkeyshit. Here, let's prove that; let's do a search for "Lyrics of Quakerism, and other poems":
> > > > https://www.google.ca/search?q=Lyrics+of+Quakerism%2C+and+other+poems&sxsrf=AB5stBh6QbasKun18DuuKMnLET_IhyuJug%3A1689468994584&ei=QkCzZOqjI5uoptQP-7ybuA8&ved=0ahUKEwjqzJ-6gpKAAxUblIkEHXveBvcQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Lyrics+of+Quakerism%2C+and+other+poems&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJEx5cmljcyBvZiBRdWFrZXJpc20sIGFuZCBvdGhlciBwb2VtczIEECMYJ0jaSVD-DVjGPnAAeACQAQCYAfcIoAGtEKoBCzEuMi41LTEuMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIHECMYsAMYJ8ICBxAjGLACGCfiAwQYASBBiAYBkAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
> > > >
> > > > Notice how every source of the book comes up, regardless of how the publisher or site chose to capitalize or punctuate any of it. Now, please cut the crap.
> > > Yes, let's cut the crap.
> > >
> > > I copy pasted the title/info from the first post in this thread, and this is the first result that I found: an image of the book's cover:
> > >
> > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lyrics_of_Quakerism_and_Other_Poems/wsgBAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover
> > >
> > > This is a photograph of the 1895 first edition, and in fact, the entire book can be viewed page by page by clicking the arrows.
> > <yawn> I have a copy of that edition linked in the PPP article on Roberts:
> > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433066571716&view=1up&seq=13
> > > That is the one that I was going by, and I've no doubt that NancyGene was going by it as well.
> >

And once again (since you ignored it the first time), it's identical to the one I used when writing my bibliography. So what is your point?

> > > As per your claim that I'd said "the comma prevents anyone from finding the book," it is blatantly false. It's yet another of your tiresome "straw man" arguments, wherein you rephrase someone else's statement just enough to subtly change its meaning. Here is what I actually wrote:
> > >
> > > "I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > footnote or bibliography."
> >
> > Note what I underlined. You were trying to tell me that by using a comma (and, in fairness, the lower case on "and other poems") I was somehow keeping "Readers and scholars" from locating the book.
> >
> That is not true, Plagiarist George.

Really, Lying Michael? Let's read it again.

>
> I said that "I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a footnote or bibliography."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- and now you've repeated it, Lying Michael. So, once again, I'll ask you: why do you think that anyone would be unable to do your (a) ("locate the source material") because of the comma?

> Listing a title incorrectly is not particularly helpful for a reader who is attempting to locate a book; and your inaccurate information could easily get copied into a bibliography.

Anyone reading the PPP bibliography can simply look the same cover image you were bragging about your Bandar-Log colleague having found, and format the information from that according to their own style conventions, the same as I did. If you're worried about them copying mine, you and your "colleague" are welcome to set up your own poetry encyclopedia, copy all the PPP articles (they're all licensed for free), and reformat the bibliographies your way. Or, if you'd rather just whine about the ones on PPP, go ahead; it really doesn't matter to me.

> But what is the point of continuing with your straw man? You've been called on it. What more is there to say?

Well, since you want to pretend you didn't say that, we can move on to the other part of your claim. Assuming that the comma does not stop anyone from locating the source material, how does it stop them from formatting the info "correctly" according to their own convention?

> Again, one should think that an editor would want to list his sources correctly. Are you saying that you don't care whether your sources are listed so?

I certainly don't care what you call "correct." As I told you, the standard of "correctness" on PPP (and PPB) is accurate information -- accurate texts and date, etc. Conformity to the house style is desirable, and I'll edit other people's articles accordingly, but that's a matter of style, not of "correctness." Understand yet?

> > > Obviously printing the *correct* title of a book facilitates a reader's ability to locate it. Printing it incorrectly may not stop them from locating it, but having knowledge of the correct title is certainly not a hindrance.
> > As I showed you by giving you the link, using the title the way it appears on the wiki would not "hinder" anyone in the slightest from finding and reading the book. But I'd hoped you'd clicked through and read what I linked as well. Since you don't seem to have, I'll paste that in. Here's how the book is being referred to by editors and publishers:
> >
> I didn't say that it was a hindrance, Plagiarist George. You really need to learn how to read.

So now you're conceding that it's *not* a hindrance, Lying Michael? Either it is or it isn't, you know.

> I said that listing it correctly was *not* a hindrance.

So then neither would be a "hindrance".

> When one is seeking an original source, having the correct information is more helpful than having only partially correct information. You do agree with that, don't you?

If you mean "accurate" information, then yes. But I think you're equivocating: using "correct" to mean both being "accurate" and matching your style preferences.

> > Lyrics of Quakerism: And Other Poems
> > Lyrics of Quakerism and other poems
> > Lyrics Of Quakerism: & Other Poems
> > Lyrics Of Quakerism And Other Poems
> > Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
> > Lyrics of Quakerism : & Other Poems
> > Lyrics of Quakerism, and other poems
> > Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
> > Lyrics of Quakerism
> >
> > Those are stylistic decisions, and it is indeed monkeyshit for you to claim they're all incorrect.
> No, Plagiarist George. Those are examples of ignorance and/or sloppy editing.

So take it up with those publishers, Lying Michael.

> One does not capitalize "And" but leave "other" in lowercase. Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be?

Now, Lying Michael, I just told you that I didn't write those examples. I'd as if you were really as dishonest as that, but of course we know the answer already: Yes, you are. For you any lie will do, if it gets the Bander-Log a "win."

> For the correct "style," one goes to the original manuscript (as NancyGene and I have done). The above are examples of misinformation.

Lying Michael: I'm sure that all of them looked at the same title page that you and NastyGoon looked at. Please stop trying to pretend that you two were the first

> > > More importantly, my actual statement also says that having the correct title is important for listing a book in a bibliography. Are you going to try to dismiss that as "monkeyshit" as well?
> > What I'd dismiss as "monkeyshit" is your calling all the above "incorrect" titles. I could probably give you a list with just as much variations from bibliographies. I'm not going to, since I'm already spending too much time on your monkeyshines, but I would like you to be aware of the fact that punctuation and capitalization is not uniform across the internet or (as I know, because I use WorldCat in writing mine) across all libraries.
> >
> Again, the internet is not a scholarly source. The internet contains various posts/blogs/sites run by ignoramuses, illiterates, morons, and other denizens of "Shadowville."

Really, Lying Michael? The "entire" internet is run by "ignoramuses" (sic), "illiterates", and "morons"? Tell me: do the "ignoramuses" (sic) or the "illiterates" run WorldCat? Do the "illiterates" or the "morons" run Google Books (where NastyGoon found your copy of the book)?

> The correct title appears on the cover page of the first edition of the book. Any variations on that title are wrong.

Once again, what appears on the title page is:

LYRICS OF QUAKERISM

AND

OTHER POEMS

[all lines centered on page].

Obviously I am not going to format a bibliography like that.

> > > I have worked, professionally, as an assistant editor with a major Manhattan-based publishing house (Wolters-Kluwer). I also attended several graduate college courses (at both CUNY and NYU) in editing, proofreading, and book production while working there, and am trying to share some of the knowledge and experience I gained with you. I have proofread dozens of bibliographies, and am telling you that one does not insert commas into a book title, or set a supposed "subtitle" in lower case.
> > I have created thousands of bibliographies on PPP, including those for articles from Wikipedia etc., and in the process have read at least five times as many. In the decade I've been doing that, I've noticed a wide variety in stylistic conventions -- are you aware, for example, that some places capitalize *only* the initial letter of a book's title? -- and chosen the ones I prefer.
> >
> It isn't a matter of preference, Plagiarist George; it's a matter of what is correct.

Once again, Lying Michael, you are equivocating between (and possibly confusing) two different meanings of "correct"

correct / 2 of 2 / adjective
1: conforming to an approved or conventional standard
correct behavior
2: conforming to or agreeing with fact, logic, or known truth
a correct response
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correct

As the cliche goes: Words matter; learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.

> Here is what William Strunk wrote in "The Elements of Style":
>
> Titles. For the titles of literary works, scholarly usage prefers italics with capitalized initials. The usage of editors and publishers varies, some using italics with capitalized initials, others using Roman with capitalized initials and with or without quotation marks. Use italics (indicated in manuscript by underscoring), except in writing for a periodical that follows a different practice. Omit initial A or The from titles when you place the possessive before them.
>
> The Iliad; the Odyssey; As You Like It; To a Skylark; The Newcomes; A Tale of Two Cities; Dickens's Tale of Two Cities.
>
> [END QUOTE]
>
> https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37134/37134-h/37134-h.htm

LOL! Now you're quoting Strunk. Yet your colleague broke Strunk's #1 style rule right in the subject header; and since you jumped into the thread to do backup trolling for them, you haven't even noticed.

My argument isn't with Strunk. It's with two anonymous trolls, one who hasn't read Strunk's, and one who read him decades ago and has forgotten most of what he read.

<monkeyshitsnip>

[Michael Pendragon]

Apparently that your proofreading skills are abominable.

> > > > As per your claim that I'd said "the comma prevents anyone from finding the book," it is blatantly false. It's yet another of your tiresome "straw man" arguments, wherein you rephrase someone else's statement just enough to subtly change its meaning. Here is what I actually wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a
> > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > footnote or bibliography."
> > >
> > > Note what I underlined. You were trying to tell me that by using a comma (and, in fairness, the lower case on "and other poems") I was somehow keeping "Readers and scholars" from locating the book.
> > >
> > That is not true, Plagiarist George.
> Really, Lying Michael? Let's read it again.
> >
> > I said that "I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a footnote or bibliography."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> - and now you've repeated it, Lying Michael. So, once again, I'll ask you: why do you think that anyone would be unable to do your (a) ("locate the source material") because of the comma?
>

Where do I use the word "unable," Plagiarist George?

I said that "readers and scholars would want to be able to locate the source material" and listing the title correctly facilitates that.

Are you really so dense as to be unable to understand the difference between being unable to locate a source book and helping one to locate the same?

> > Listing a title incorrectly is not particularly helpful for a reader who is attempting to locate a book; and your inaccurate information could easily get copied into a bibliography.
> Anyone reading the PPP bibliography can simply look the same cover image you were bragging about your Bandar-Log colleague having found, and format the information from that according to their own style conventions, the same as I did. If you're worried about them copying mine, you and your "colleague" are welcome to set up your own poetry encyclopedia, copy all the PPP articles (they're all licensed for free), and reformat the bibliographies your way. Or, if you'd rather just whine about the ones on PPP, go ahead; it really doesn't matter to me.
>

They wouldn't have to look at the cover if you'd listed it correctly, Plagiarist George.

Do you realize that copying the title incorrectly (especially when you have a copy of the cover image displaying the correct title) only makes you look like a... dunce?

> > But what is the point of continuing with your straw man? You've been called on it. What more is there to say?
> Well, since you want to pretend you didn't say that, we can move on to the other part of your claim. Assuming that the comma does not stop anyone from locating the source material, how does it stop them from formatting the info "correctly" according to their own convention?
> > Again, one should think that an editor would want to list his sources correctly. Are you saying that you don't care whether your sources are listed so?
> I certainly don't care what you call "correct." As I told you, the standard of "correctness" on PPP (and PPB) is accurate information -- accurate texts and date, etc. Conformity to the house style is desirable, and I'll edit other people's articles accordingly, but that's a matter of style, not of "correctness." Understand yet?
>

Is the PPP and PPB house style one of incompetence?

> > > > Obviously printing the *correct* title of a book facilitates a reader's ability to locate it. Printing it incorrectly may not stop them from locating it, but having knowledge of the correct title is certainly not a hindrance.
> > > As I showed you by giving you the link, using the title the way it appears on the wiki would not "hinder" anyone in the slightest from finding and reading the book. But I'd hoped you'd clicked through and read what I linked as well. Since you don't seem to have, I'll paste that in. Here's how the book is being referred to by editors and publishers:
> > >
> > I didn't say that it was a hindrance, Plagiarist George. You really need to learn how to read.
> So now you're conceding that it's *not* a hindrance, Lying Michael? Either it is or it isn't, you know.

See above, George.

There is a world of difference between *helping* someone find a book and *hindering* someone from finding it.

> > I said that listing it correctly was *not* a hindrance.
> So then neither would be a "hindrance".

I never claimed that either was, Mr. Straw Man.

> > When one is seeking an original source, having the correct information is more helpful than having only partially correct information. You do agree with that, don't you?
> If you mean "accurate" information, then yes.

"Accurate information" and "correct information" are synonymous in this case.

But I think you're equivocating: using "correct" to mean both being "accurate" and matching your style preferences.

If you were the original publisher of the book, you could (with the author's permission) make changes to its title. Once the book has been published, you cannot.

> > > Lyrics of Quakerism: And Other Poems
> > > Lyrics of Quakerism and other poems
> > > Lyrics Of Quakerism: & Other Poems
> > > Lyrics Of Quakerism And Other Poems
> > > Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
> > > Lyrics of Quakerism : & Other Poems
> > > Lyrics of Quakerism, and other poems
> > > Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
> > > Lyrics of Quakerism
> > >
> > > Those are stylistic decisions, and it is indeed monkeyshit for you to claim they're all incorrect.
> > No, Plagiarist George. Those are examples of ignorance and/or sloppy editing.
> So take it up with those publishers, Lying Michael.

If they join AAPC, I will, Plagiarist George.

> > One does not capitalize "And" but leave "other" in lowercase. Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be?
> Now, Lying Michael, I just told you that I didn't write those examples. I'd as if you were really as dishonest as that, but of course we know the answer already: Yes, you are. For you any lie will do, if it gets the Bander-Log a "win."
>

Stop playing the dunce, Dance. I never said that you wrote any of the above examples.

> > For the correct "style," one goes to the original manuscript (as NancyGene and I have done). The above are examples of misinformation.
> Lying Michael: I'm sure that all of them looked at the same title page that you and NastyGoon looked at. Please stop trying to pretend that you two were the first

How are you sure, Plagiarist George?

The best that you, or anyone else, can do is to speculate.

> > > > More importantly, my actual statement also says that having the correct title is important for listing a book in a bibliography. Are you going to try to dismiss that as "monkeyshit" as well?
> > > What I'd dismiss as "monkeyshit" is your calling all the above "incorrect" titles. I could probably give you a list with just as much variations from bibliographies. I'm not going to, since I'm already spending too much time on your monkeyshines, but I would like you to be aware of the fact that punctuation and capitalization is not uniform across the internet or (as I know, because I use WorldCat in writing mine) across all libraries.
> > >
> > Again, the internet is not a scholarly source. The internet contains various posts/blogs/sites run by ignoramuses, illiterates, morons, and other denizens of "Shadowville."
> Really, Lying Michael? The "entire" internet is run by "ignoramuses" (sic), "illiterates", and "morons"? Tell me: do the "ignoramuses" (sic) or the "illiterates" run WorldCat? Do the "illiterates" or the "morons" run Google Books (where NastyGoon found your copy of the book)?

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
ig·no·ra·mus
noun
plural noun: ignoramuses

an ignorant or stupid person.
"assume that your examiner is an ignoramus and explain everything to him"

https://www.google.com/search?channel=fen&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ignoramuses

Either the internet, or George Dance, is ignorant as per the above.

> > The correct title appears on the cover page of the first edition of the book. Any variations on that title are wrong.
> Once again, what appears on the title page is:
>
> LYRICS OF QUAKERISM
>
> AND
>
> OTHER POEMS
>
> [all lines centered on page].
>
> Obviously I am not going to format a bibliography like that.

ALL CAPS are not carried over into bibliographical reference lists.

> > > > I have worked, professionally, as an assistant editor with a major Manhattan-based publishing house (Wolters-Kluwer). I also attended several graduate college courses (at both CUNY and NYU) in editing, proofreading, and book production while working there, and am trying to share some of the knowledge and experience I gained with you. I have proofread dozens of bibliographies, and am telling you that one does not insert commas into a book title, or set a supposed "subtitle" in lower case.
> > > I have created thousands of bibliographies on PPP, including those for articles from Wikipedia etc., and in the process have read at least five times as many. In the decade I've been doing that, I've noticed a wide variety in stylistic conventions -- are you aware, for example, that some places capitalize *only* the initial letter of a book's title? -- and chosen the ones I prefer.
> > >
> > It isn't a matter of preference, Plagiarist George; it's a matter of what is correct.
> Once again, Lying Michael, you are equivocating between (and possibly confusing) two different meanings of "correct"
>
> correct / 2 of 2 / adjective
> 1: conforming to an approved or conventional standard
> correct behavior
> 2: conforming to or agreeing with fact, logic, or known truth
> a correct response
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correct
>

How do you not understand Definition 1?

> As the cliche goes: Words matter; learn what they mean and how to use them correctly.

"Medice, cura te ipsum."

> > Here is what William Strunk wrote in "The Elements of Style":
> >
> > Titles. For the titles of literary works, scholarly usage prefers italics with capitalized initials. The usage of editors and publishers varies, some using italics with capitalized initials, others using Roman with capitalized initials and with or without quotation marks. Use italics (indicated in manuscript by underscoring), except in writing for a periodical that follows a different practice. Omit initial A or The from titles when you place the possessive before them.
> >
> > The Iliad; the Odyssey; As You Like It; To a Skylark; The Newcomes; A Tale of Two Cities; Dickens's Tale of Two Cities.
> >
> > [END QUOTE]
> >
> > https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37134/37134-h/37134-h.htm
> LOL! Now you're quoting Strunk. Yet your colleague broke Strunk's #1 style rule right in the subject header; and since you jumped into the thread to do backup trolling for them, you haven't even noticed.
>

What rule do you think she broke?

Not that it matters. Errors are expected in a discussion group; not in what purports to be a scholarly resource.

> My argument isn't with Strunk. It's with two anonymous trolls, one who hasn't read Strunk's, and one who read him decades ago and has forgotten most of what he read.

How would you know what we have read and/or forgotten, Plagiarist George?

You were mistaken about the plural of "ignoramus"; you were mistaken about my use of "correct" even though you posted a definition that complies with that usage ("conforming to an approved or conventional standard"); and you were mistaken when you stated your certainty that all of the sloppy internet "editors" had looked up the book's original cover page; you were mistaken when you claimed that I'd called your use of the incorrect title a "hindrance," and you're mistaken again here.

In fact, your entire post is just one big series of mistakes.

[Will Dockery]

Exactly, you nailed it, George.

🙂

[Michael Pendragon]

Well, if an illiterate, redneck, high school drop out says you "nailed it," Plagiarist George, I guess there's nothing more to say.

< plonk >

[NancyGene]

We agree with that observation.

> > > > > As per your claim that I'd said "the comma prevents anyone from finding the book," it is blatantly false. It's yet another of your tiresome "straw man" arguments, wherein you rephrase someone else's statement just enough to subtly change its meaning. Here is what I actually wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a
> > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > footnote or bibliography."
> > > >
> > > > Note what I underlined. You were trying to tell me that by using a comma (and, in fairness, the lower case on "and other poems") I was somehow keeping "Readers and scholars" from locating the book.
> > > >
> > > That is not true, Plagiarist George.
> > Really, Lying Michael? Let's read it again.
> > >
> > > I said that "I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a footnote or bibliography."
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > - and now you've repeated it, Lying Michael. So, once again, I'll ask you: why do you think that anyone would be unable to do your (a) ("locate the source material") because of the comma?
> >
> Where do I use the word "unable," Plagiarist George?
>
> I said that "readers and scholars would want to be able to locate the source material" and listing the title correctly facilitates that.
>
> Are you really so dense as to be unable to understand the difference between being unable to locate a source book and helping one to locate the same?

George Dance is again deflecting from the main points of our post, which were that he had the publication date wrong and had inserted a comma into the title. There is no excuse for changing the title, as he did.

> > > Listing a title incorrectly is not particularly helpful for a reader who is attempting to locate a book; and your inaccurate information could easily get copied into a bibliography.
> > Anyone reading the PPP bibliography can simply look the same cover image you were bragging about your Bandar-Log colleague having found, and format the information from that according to their own style conventions, the same as I did. If you're worried about them copying mine, you and your "colleague" are welcome to set up your own poetry encyclopedia, copy all the PPP articles (they're all licensed for free), and reformat the bibliographies your way. Or, if you'd rather just whine about the ones on PPP, go ahead; it really doesn't matter to me.

George Dance just "has" to get in digs against anyone who challenges him. Petty.

> >
> They wouldn't have to look at the cover if you'd listed it correctly, Plagiarist George.
>
> Do you realize that copying the title incorrectly (especially when you have a copy of the cover image displaying the correct title) only makes you look like a... dunce?
> > > But what is the point of continuing with your straw man? You've been called on it. What more is there to say?
> > Well, since you want to pretend you didn't say that, we can move on to the other part of your claim. Assuming that the comma does not stop anyone from locating the source material, how does it stop them from formatting the info "correctly" according to their own convention?
> > > Again, one should think that an editor would want to list his sources correctly. Are you saying that you don't care whether your sources are listed so?
> > I certainly don't care what you call "correct." As I told you, the standard of "correctness" on PPP (and PPB) is accurate information -- accurate texts and date, etc. Conformity to the house style is desirable, and I'll edit other people's articles accordingly, but that's a matter of style, not of "correctness." Understand yet?
> >
> Is the PPP and PPB house style one of incompetence?

It seems to be that, yes.

> > > > > Obviously printing the *correct* title of a book facilitates a reader's ability to locate it. Printing it incorrectly may not stop them from locating it, but having knowledge of the correct title is certainly not a hindrance.
> > > > As I showed you by giving you the link, using the title the way it appears on the wiki would not "hinder" anyone in the slightest from finding and reading the book. But I'd hoped you'd clicked through and read what I linked as well. Since you don't seem to have, I'll paste that in. Here's how the book is being referred to by editors and publishers:
> > > >
> > > I didn't say that it was a hindrance, Plagiarist George. You really need to learn how to read.
> > So now you're conceding that it's *not* a hindrance, Lying Michael? Either it is or it isn't, you know.
> See above, George.

George Dance again deflects from his original error.

>
> There is a world of difference between *helping* someone find a book and *hindering* someone from finding it.
> > > I said that listing it correctly was *not* a hindrance.
> > So then neither would be a "hindrance".
> I never claimed that either was, Mr. Straw Man.
> > > When one is seeking an original source, having the correct information is more helpful than having only partially correct information. You do agree with that, don't you?
> > If you mean "accurate" information, then yes.
> "Accurate information" and "correct information" are synonymous in this case.
> But I think you're equivocating: using "correct" to mean both being "accurate" and matching your style preferences.
> If you were the original publisher of the book, you could (with the author's permission) make changes to its title. Once the book has been published, you cannot.
> > > > Lyrics of Quakerism: And Other Poems
> > > > Lyrics of Quakerism and other poems
> > > > Lyrics Of Quakerism: & Other Poems
> > > > Lyrics Of Quakerism And Other Poems
> > > > Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
> > > > Lyrics of Quakerism : & Other Poems
> > > > Lyrics of Quakerism, and other poems
> > > > Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
> > > > Lyrics of Quakerism
> > > >
> > > > Those are stylistic decisions, and it is indeed monkeyshit for you to claim they're all incorrect.
> > > No, Plagiarist George. Those are examples of ignorance and/or sloppy editing.
> > So take it up with those publishers, Lying Michael.
> If they join AAPC, I will, Plagiarist George.

Which still does not excuse George Dance for adding a comma. Even in the above, no literate English writer would insert a comma after Quakerism or add a colon (or semi-colon or em dash).

> > > One does not capitalize "And" but leave "other" in lowercase. Are you really as stupid as you make yourself out to be?
> > Now, Lying Michael, I just told you that I didn't write those examples. I'd as if you were really as dishonest as that, but of course we know the answer already: Yes, you are. For you any lie will do, if it gets the Bander-Log a "win."

George Dance attacks the messenger.

> >
> Stop playing the dunce, Dance. I never said that you wrote any of the above examples.
> > > For the correct "style," one goes to the original manuscript (as NancyGene and I have done). The above are examples of misinformation.
> > Lying Michael: I'm sure that all of them looked at the same title page that you and NastyGoon looked at. Please stop trying to pretend that you two were the first
> How are you sure, Plagiarist George?

The book had an original publication and an original title. George Dance continues to use silly, childish and unnecessary names to address people who know more than he does.

>
> The best that you, or anyone else, can do is to speculate.
> > > > > More importantly, my actual statement also says that having the correct title is important for listing a book in a bibliography. Are you going to try to dismiss that as "monkeyshit" as well?

George Dance now resorts to swearing because his concrete arguments have cracked.

> > > > What I'd dismiss as "monkeyshit" is your calling all the above "incorrect" titles. I could probably give you a list with just as much variations from bibliographies. I'm not going to, since I'm already spending too much time on your monkeyshines, but I would like you to be aware of the fact that punctuation and capitalization is not uniform across the internet or (as I know, because I use WorldCat in writing mine) across all libraries.
> > > >
> > > Again, the internet is not a scholarly source. The internet contains various posts/blogs/sites run by ignoramuses, illiterates, morons, and other denizens of "Shadowville."
> > Really, Lying Michael? The "entire" internet is run by "ignoramuses" (sic), "illiterates", and "morons"? Tell me: do the "ignoramuses" (sic) or the "illiterates" run WorldCat? Do the "illiterates" or the "morons" run Google Books (where NastyGoon found your copy of the book)?
> Dictionary
> Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
> ig·no·ra·mus
> noun
> plural noun: ignoramuses
>
> an ignorant or stupid person.
> "assume that your examiner is an ignoramus and explain everything to him"
>
> https://www.google.com/search?channel=fen&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ignoramuses
>
> Either the internet, or George Dance, is ignorant as per the above.

George Dance continues to deflect from his errors.

George Dance is referring to our use of just the apostrophe after a proper name that ends in "s." There is much disagreement over whether or not to add an extra "'s," but we prefer just the s. We are going by the "Penguin Guide to Punctuation," which says: "A name ending in s takes only an apostrophe if the possessive form is not pronounced with an extra s. Hence: Socrates’ philosophy, Ulysses’ companions, Saint Saens’ music, Aristophanes’ plays." We would not say "Roberts sez." The extra s is redundant.
https://www.dailywritingtips.com/possessive-of-proper-names-ending-in-s/

>
> Not that it matters. Errors are expected in a discussion group; not in what purports to be a scholarly resource.
> > My argument isn't with Strunk. It's with two anonymous trolls, one who hasn't read Strunk's, and one who read him decades ago and has forgotten most of what he read.
> How would you know what we have read and/or forgotten, Plagiarist George?

We can assure you that we have read Strunk's "The Elements of Style."

>
> You were mistaken about the plural of "ignoramus"; you were mistaken about my use of "correct" even though you posted a definition that complies with that usage ("conforming to an approved or conventional standard"); and you were mistaken when you stated your certainty that all of the sloppy internet "editors" had looked up the book's original cover page; you were mistaken when you claimed that I'd called your use of the incorrect title a "hindrance," and you're mistaken again here.
>
> In fact, your entire post is just one big series of mistakes.

It is also a series of deflections and attacks on people who wish to correct mistakes.

[Will Dockery]

Says Michael Pendragon, the delusional shit eating little fuckwit monkey.

And so it goes.

[NancyGene]

See above.

[Will Dockery]

On Sunday, July 16, 2023 at 1:41:13 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 11:29:50 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:59:47 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:

> > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 7:21:44 PM UTC-4, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 5:46:18 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:46:21 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 8:28:16 PM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 3:16:46 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > > > > > You have 1885 as the publication date and it should be (September 12) 1895. There is also no comma after "Quakerism" in the title. If you are going to be a source for information, you really should try to be accurate.
> > > > > > > Thanks. It's been fixed on both of his poems.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Great, but you didn't fix the (wrong) comma that you inserted into the book's title.
> > > > > Sounds like you're getting cocky. You should realize I didn't take your word for the date; I checked it against the PPP article. Publication date is a matter of fact, and I'm always happy to correct those when I have a reliable sourse (like PPP).
> > > > >
> > > > > OTOH, how a title should appear in another work is not a matter of fact, but a style decision. The title on the front page of the book is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM / AND / OTHER POEMS". Both PPP and PPB use a comma, and give the subtitle ("and other poems") in lower case.
> > > > >
> > > > Since you're not publishing the poem, but reprinting it from a book, it is imperative that you list the book's title correctly, as it serves to identify your source. The book's correct title is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM and OTHER POEMS."
> > > >
> > > > Using ALL CAPS is a stylistic call, however, 1) regular rules regarding capital letters in titles apply ("Lyrics of Quakerism and Other Poems"), and 2) regular rules of punctuation also apply (no comma).
> > > >
> > > > Also, when copying a book's title, unless there is a blatant punctuation error, the punctuation used in the original should be followed (again, no comma).
> > >
> > > > I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a footnote or bibliography.
> > > Michael, I realize that you're just trying to support your "colleague" again, but your story that the comma prevents anyone from finding the book is just the usual monkeyshit. Here, let's prove that; let's do a search for "Lyrics of Quakerism, and other poems":
> > > https://www.google.ca/search?q=Lyrics+of+Quakerism%2C+and+other+poems&sxsrf=AB5stBh6QbasKun18DuuKMnLET_IhyuJug%3A1689468994584&ei=QkCzZOqjI5uoptQP-7ybuA8&ved=0ahUKEwjqzJ-6gpKAAxUblIkEHXveBvcQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=Lyrics+of+Quakerism%2C+and+other+poems&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiJEx5cmljcyBvZiBRdWFrZXJpc20sIGFuZCBvdGhlciBwb2VtczIEECMYJ0jaSVD-DVjGPnAAeACQAQCYAfcIoAGtEKoBCzEuMi41LTEuMC4xuAEDyAEA-AEBwgIHECMYsAMYJ8ICBxAjGLACGCfiAwQYASBBiAYBkAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp
> > >
> > > Notice how every source of the book comes up, regardless of how the publisher or site chose to capitalize or punctuate any of it. Now, please cut the crap.
> > Yes, let's cut the crap.
> >
> > I copy pasted the title/info from the first post in this thread, and this is the first result that I found: an image of the book's cover:
> >
> > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lyrics_of_Quakerism_and_Other_Poems/wsgBAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1&printsec=frontcover
> >
> > This is a photograph of the 1895 first edition, and in fact, the entire book can be viewed page by page by clicking the arrows.
> <yawn> I have a copy of that edition linked in the PPP article on Roberts:
> https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433066571716&view=1up&seq=13
> > That is the one that I was going by, and I've no doubt that NancyGene was going by it as well.
>

> > As per your claim that I'd said "the comma prevents anyone from finding the book," it is blatantly false. It's yet another of your tiresome "straw man" arguments, wherein you rephrase someone else's statement just enough to subtly change its meaning. Here is what I actually wrote:
> >
> > "I was under the impression that Penny's Plagiarisms was partly intended as a means of bringing forgotten, Victorian era Canadian poets to light, and correct attribution would again be of the utmost importance. Readers and scholars would want to be able to a) locate the source material, and/or b) list it correctly in a
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> footnote or bibliography."
>
> Note what I underlined. You were trying to tell me that by using a comma (and, in fairness, the lower case on "and other poems") I was somehow keeping "Readers and scholars" from locating the book.

> > Obviously printing the *correct* title of a book facilitates a reader's ability to locate it. Printing it incorrectly may not stop them from locating it, but having knowledge of the correct title is certainly not a hindrance.
> As I showed you by giving you the link, using the title the way it appears on the wiki would not "hinder" anyone in the slightest from finding and reading the book. But I'd hoped you'd clicked through and read what I linked as well. Since you don't seem to have, I'll paste that in. Here's how the book is being referred to by editors and publishers:
>

> Lyrics of Quakerism: And Other Poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism and other poems
> Lyrics Of Quakerism: & Other Poems
> Lyrics Of Quakerism And Other Poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism : & Other Poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism, and other poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism: And other Poems
> Lyrics of Quakerism
>
> Those are stylistic decisions, and it is indeed monkeyshit for you to claim they're all incorrect.

> > More importantly, my actual statement also says that having the correct title is important for listing a book in a bibliography. Are you going to try to dismiss that as "monkeyshit" as well?

> What I'd dismiss as "monkeyshit" is your calling all the above "incorrect" titles. I could probably give you a list with just as much variations from bibliographies. I'm not going to, since I'm already spending too much time on your monkeyshines, but I would like you to be aware of the fact that punctuation and capitalization is not uniform across the internet or (as I know, because I use WorldCat in writing mine) across all libraries.

> > I have worked, professionally, as an assistant editor with a major Manhattan-based publishing house (Wolters-Kluwer). I also attended several graduate college courses (at both CUNY and NYU) in editing, proofreading, and book production while working there, and am trying to share some of the knowledge and experience I gained with you. I have proofread dozens of bibliographies, and am telling you that one does not insert commas into a book title, or set a supposed "subtitle" in lower case.
> I have created thousands of bibliographies on PPP, including those for articles from Wikipedia etc., and in the process have read at least five times as many. In the decade I've been doing that, I've noticed a wide variety in stylistic conventions -- are you aware, for example, that some places capitalize *only* the initial letter of a book's title? -- and chosen the ones I prefer.

> > Since you have set yourself up as an independent editor/publisher, it is helpful to be aware of such things. Rather than dismissing legitimate corrections as "monkeyshit," you should correct them on your blog and keep them in mind for future reference.
> I'm sorry to prick your exaggerated sense of self-importance again, Michael, but as I keep telling you: I do not consider you, NastyGoon, the Chimp, the MEatpuppet, or the Asstroll to be reliable sources of information on anything, and I am not going to start making changes on blog or wiki simply because you call them "correct".

> > I had two years of on-the-job training (along with the college courses) in order to advance from an editorial assistant to an assistant editor position. There's a lot to learn, and it's not the sort of thing that one can pick up simply from reading published books.

> I'm sure there is a lot to learn; but IMO the best way to learn how to write a bibliography is precisely by reading bibliographies.

> > I don't know what experience NancyGene has, but I do know that she possesses the skills to be a successful proofreader. When she offers you advice and corrections, you would be wise to take them.
> I'm sure NG appreciates the slurp. But you can do better than that for them. For one thing, stop the constant misgendering.

Again, well put, George.

And so it goes.

[NancyGene]

George Dance may want to speak for himself.

[NancyGene]

George Dance is speechless? Is he having another episode of Stiff Person Syndrome?

[Ash Wurthing]

Exactly!
Ignorance is insidious bliss to these idiots
supercilious to inconvenient truths and oblivious
to the ignorance of desires lascivious.
Nothing is remiss in their reality of "according to me"-
the World determined by their ego's decree,
not the missed new opportunities they refuse to see-
for their seas are only colored by their past glories

[Ash Wurthing]

I was told that there was a murder...
Yep, that was murder by words-- call a bus!

[NancyGene]

George Dance denies all charges and claims that the murder was committed long before he was born. He just stumbled upon it and copied it.

[George Dance]

On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:39:36 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:48:50 AM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > Why must you always repay invaluable favors with pettiness and scorn?
> I don't expect you to thank anyone for correcting your editorial blunders.

Expect what you want; but that's no reason for you to claim (once again, falsely) that I don't thank those who spot errors on the blog. The very thread on which NG kicked off the current campaign is enough to show that your story is false:
"George Dance, you have the publication date wrong on Ellwood Roberts' "July" poem"
[link snipped because this is the thread in question]

NG pointed out the error in the date; I checked it out and confirmed they were correct; so I changed it and thanked them. That should have been the end of it.

Of course, since having the error fixed was only a pretext for NG to troll -- they were "concern trolling" -- that was not the end of it. NG is still trolling on that thread to this day.

(copied from another troll thread)

[NancyGene]

George Dance, you pushed back significantly from admitting that you inserted a comma into the title. There was no comma in the original publication. You're welcome.

[George Dance]

No, NG; my position hasn't changed from what I told you the day you brought it up.

"OTOH, how a title should appear in another work is not a matter of fact, but a style decision. The title on the front page of the book is "LYRICS OF QUAKERISM / AND / OTHER POEMS". Both PPP and PPB use a comma, and give the subtitle ("and other poems") in lower case."

> There was no comma in the original publication.

Once again, the title of the "original publication" was:

LYRICS OF QUAKERISM

AND

OTHER POEMS

(all caps, spread over five lines). No editor in the world would write it in a bibliography like that. Got it?

> You're welcome.