Talk:Ruth Stone

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I see the two guggenheims stated at poets.org ; however, there is only one listed at guggenheim foundation. .  Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 17:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many obits, The LA Times, The Washington Post, The Indie, the BBC and Stone's own publishers Copper Canyon and Bloodaxe also state two (1975 and 1976). Bloodaxe says that the money from one helped roof Stone's house. From all these strong sources, I would imagine there was a problem with the Guggenheim search function. It's worth digging for more detail. Span (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: well fine. guggenheim says 1971, in the complete database of all fellowships. multiples are very rare. who do you trust to know what they gave - the primary or secondary sources?  Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always tricky to know. I've  emailed the Foundation to ask for more details. Best wishes Span (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: i left it, but we won't really know without some original research into her papers. wherever her literary executor puts them. i would just say "don't believe everything you read in reliable sources". don't know what the foundation can do about conflicting refs.  Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 18:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

text: The Guggenheim Foundation emailed to say that Stone received a fellowship in 1971 and 1975 and that they only ever publish on their website a first fellowship awarded to a recipient; (less than useful, perhaps). This fellowship info is echoed by the Oxford Companion (above), so I think that is strong enough to cite and use as a source. Would you agree? I might mail Stone's publishers to say they have the wrong details up on their sites. Best wishes Span (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Guggenheims

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ruth Stone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402113214/http://www.timesargus.com/article/20090426/FEATURES07/904260326 to http://www.timesargus.com/article/20090426/FEATURES07/904260326
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified