![]() | This page 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. |
Thanks for your feedback! Burgess and Edelman are cited in Clissmann's book on O'Brien, I just missed that reference and added it. You are right that the Joyce references are more relevant the Somerset Maugham for Bildungsroman, and thanks for the tip on Father Fahrt as well.
I must say while I know and appreciate the need for the "no original research" rule, I find the borderline between "plot summary" and "no original research" a little tenuous. I can see why a claim like "The fact that Manus achieves easy success despite his lack of business ethics suggests O'Brien is critiquing capitalism" is clearly POV and original research, because there's nothing in the text that refers to capitalism. Research and thought is required to come up with this statement, banal though it is. Similarly, I know not to include a POV comment like "O'Brien's work is a shallow rehash of Joyce's Dubliners with less-sophisticated humour" because this requires independent thinking and judgement.
However, when it comes to stuff that is actually stated in the novel and which is verifiable, surely it's okay to describe what happens and make obvious comments using the primary source alone? The novel itself means the squalid environment many, many times; it is even subtitled "an exegesis of squalor", now surely it isn't original research to mention this fact?
When I set out to write the introduction, I remembered vaguely that specific years were mentioned at the start and the end of the novel. So I went through the text and found out the starting year (1890) and noticed that Finnbarr recalled being around four years old then, and the end year (1910) which is on Collopy's grave, just before Finnbarr leaves school. When I went to write this down, I noticed immediately that it was a nonsense statement, because Finnbarr couldn't be leaving school at twenty-four, and concluded that O'Brien must have got his chronology wrong. To me, this isn't individual research: it's just stating a contradiction that is evident in the text and verifiable by looking at the novel. Indeed, it would seem very odd to have these dates in the article WITHOUT commenting on this contradiction.
No-one will disagree with your point that O'Brien knew that 'Fahrt' meant 'to travel' in German, and this is a pun because he does "travel" (first to Ireland and then to Italy with Collopy), so I wouldn't count that as original research either. If you know German, it's pretty obvious. And I don't know that any critic has noticed that O'Brien seems to have got the words on Keats' gravestone wrong either, although, clearly, the photograph of Keats' gravestone is proof that O'Brien's version is incorrect. But if we take a very strict line on only including stuff that "no secondary literature has pointed out before" then presumably we couldn't either of these comments.
At grad school, one of my professors always reminds us that "original research must be something that a reasonable person could disagree with", meaning that you can't build a thesis around something that is obvious. The corollary is also true: anything that is so obvious that no reasonable person can disagree with it can hardly count as original research. Surely no reasonable person could object to the claim that squalor pervades the novel, or that twenty-four-old men are not still typically high school students. However, if the Wikipedia definition is different to that, then I'll try to adjust the article accordingly. Your advice would be appreciated :)
Thanks for enlightening me on Kraftwerk, I also thought the opening lines to that song were "Fun, fun, fun on the Autobahn." ! :)
Thanks Zorba the Geek ( talk) 05:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As a fellow Flann O'Brien fan, I'm pleased to see you've been doing a lot of work on At Swim. If you're interested, I'd really appreciate it if you look over my new article on The Hard Life and let me know what you think. :)
Thanks, Zorba the Geek ( talk) 07:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC).
Hello, Lexo. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 14:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi There,
I saw your remarks on Travellers talkpage and thought I would drop you a line. The views and comments that are frequently expressed on that article are quite unsettling really and I usually have to revery vandalism a couple of times a week. I know in Ireland that travellers have a bad rep but it suprises me that people can't see that this article in meant to be objective and free of bar-rioom style rhetoric.
On another note, I enjoyed your article on Johnny Doran. By coincidence, I started an article on Ronan Browne recently (a fellow uileann piper). It was a stub but somebody (actually Ronan browne I beieve!) updated it considerably!
Anyhoo- Have a great day and hope to cross paths again sometime!
Downunda Downunda 02:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working on Smells Like Teen Spirit to bring it to featured status. All that's really left is to clarify some citations. After searching through the page history, I was able to pinpoint you as the person who added the citation that Dave Marsh compared the song's riff to "Louie, Louie". I've checked out the original 1993 edition of the book from my library and it doesn't mention the riff at all; it only focuses on the lyrics. I noticed you cited the 2004 edition of the book; if you can add a page number to the citation that would be very helpful. Thanks. WesleyDodds 07:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{ User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 ( talk) 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey there,
great to hear that someone else is on board to edit the Finnegans Wake page, it needs all the contributors it can get, and things have been pretty quiet round those parts of late- welcome on board. I don't completely share your bleak view of the state of the page, as in my opinion it's a hundred times better than it was a year ago - then it was full of POV statements like "HCE is every man and his fall represents all falls" and the like, and now it's filled with referenced, concrete critical analyses of the text; so POV has been cut down alot, and most stuff is referenced. That being said, it still needs loads of work and is getting a bit cluttered, so a new pair of eyes and scissors would indeed do no end of good. I recommend that you be bold, and edit as you see fit, and if there's anything I disagree with, I'll just bring it up on the talk page and we can find a common consensus. I look forward to seeing your contributions! all the best Warchef ( talk) 11:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
but speaking of babies, i - serendipitously - hear mine crying now, so i'll continue my other points about how i think we should continue tomorrow. all the best. Warchef ( talk) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The
May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me of this matter. As I understand Booker T. & the M.G.s is incorrect - I later tried to ammend the title however that resulted in multiple redirects and so would not allow me to do that. The title was based on the Green Onions cover, and not purely based on the correctness of the grammer. I did create a talk discussion here. The capitalised "T" on "The" I do agree is correct, however there are many references to the "MG's" without the fullstops. Do your references confirm that is it in fact Booker T. & The M.G.'s and not Booker T. & The MG's? - Arite ( talk) 10:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You spawned quite a discussion over at Nash equilibrium. Predictably and unfortunately, the discussants are people already very familiar with NE. Your continued input as someone new to the stuff would be helpful. Cretog8 ( talk) 08:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Find a reliable reference that it is in the key of E. WesleyDodds ( talk) 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"Radio Free Europe Score".
Fefogomez (
talk)
12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Frankly, I'm surprised the rhetoric isn't nastier than it is. Dppowell ( talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Lexo: regarding the stuff you deleted from the Freud article, although I'm not much inclined to restore it, I have to note that it's neither more nor less a violation of no original research than much else that remains in the article. Skoojal ( talk) 00:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking if there is a section that you don't want to do I could step up and try to do those. I could probably get to the library within a few days, plus we have the whole internet at our disposal (well, the reliable sites anyway). If there are topics that you know well, you should definately do those ones, I know very little so I could start anywhere you need me to. Black ngold29 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to leave this quick note - the updates are looking good. Just tell me when you are finished for the day and I will add some of my sources to it and some minor formatting stuff. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
T.S. Eliot's remarks on Vanity are found in the "Haslewood Press edition" in which he then "shows" how "the Vanity belongs in the artistic world defined by the poetry of Juvenal, Dryden, Pope, and Horace" according to Demaria on p. 131. I hope that helps. :)
Ottava Rima (
talk)
21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I added and expanded
Life of Samuel Johnson. You might want to check it out, add things, etc. I'm about to put up a page on biographies of Johnson's life, including "biographies", "memoirs", "table talk", and "anecdotes" written by Johnson's contemporaries.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am interested. :) I have a little prep work for it, along with the title page image. Start, and I will follow, then you can clean up, etc, like before. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 13:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Johnson began writing the play when he worked at his father's place in Lichfield, and increased working on the play in 1735 when he started his own school. He held off from writing the play in 1737. I'll add that appropriately. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Irene is starting to come together. Drop me a note if you need anything, or would like some more refs or background in particular areas. I could see what I can find. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to apologize for baring teeth reflexively. I have had a rather bad history with the assessment teams, and I reacted instinctively. Please accept my most heartfelt apology.
After I bit, I then got distracted by a shiny ball and wandered off, which happens more and more these dog days. To be frank, the problem with repairing At Swim-Two-Birds is that when I began it, it was confined to common knowledge (meaning that it only stipulated things that could be found in more than three reference works), but the genius and odd editors that Wikipedia only rarely attracts came to work. There were people writing there who seemed to have not only knowledge but possession of O'Nolan's earliest works, people who had read him when he still wrote for the paper. And then we started to get people who wanted him to be a Hero of the Republic and those who wanted him to be a Disgrace to his People. This went on with the Flann O'Brien page and, to a lesser degree, At Swim-Two-Birds. I did little to stop all of it because, first, they had access to things that simply were rare. They also resented the heck out of anyone not overtly Irish having an opinion.
What worried me was that we might lose some of the really interesting stuff. If an overhauling editor simply excised anything not readily confirmed, we might lose some good material, but if he or she looked to confirm the facts present, we might do well.
I haven't gone to look over all the work you've done, but I will, and I do promise that I'll be a more reasonable beast than the one you first saw. (And Tale of a Tub -- I had done a great deal of work on it in life, and I tried to stay generally within what Guthkelch and Smith had given in their scholarly edition (OUP 1920, reprint 1958) and then keep the critical comments so far within what every reader can see (just close reading) or stuff that three or more critics have said (they all use their own patented phrases, but they're saying the same thing). I appreciate the compliment. It's still my favorite book.) Geogre ( talk) 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 04:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Victuallers ( talk) 13:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
They were put up, and in the next day the 7 pages related to biographies on Johnson were displayed on the main page. :) It was very Johnsonian. By the way, I started working on
The Plays of William Shakespeare. I'm still working on it, I just got distracted right now.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
00:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
If your taste is so perfect Lexo, you might as well do us the courtesy and share it. Nothing to say now except: lets see; mmm? Ceoil sláinte 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Lexo - I am with you on this and am trying to bash it into some sense but it is hard going. I have been concentrating on the biography which has been missing huge chunks of important material, while being bloated with someone's ideological takes. I have also been working on the last section, which is perhaps the place for points of views, but it is a hotch potch, and needs structure it. Meanwhile the bit in the middle is a jumble. This section needs to be stronger on his writing ("work" omits all his novels) and there is a political chunk that belongs in the last section, and then some genuine bits of legacy. I hope we can work together on this. No one seems to use the talk page except for their 5th form essays. Regards Motmit ( talk) 20:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lexo. I disagree with the frame of your question, 'what right do I have' - as far as I can see I don't need to have any special rights. I read several FA candidates and was motivated to comment by the lack of clarity in the article with regards the notability of the subject, and I thought "how is this article an FA? it doesn't even get the balance between significant and trivial right". Perhaps if more disinterested parties passed critisism on articles, fewer "crufty" articles would get written, let alone promoted. Hope that helps. I'll have another look at the article in a day or so and see if it is better balanced now. -- Davémon ( talk) 08:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(I thought I'd already mentioned this) Perhaps you should consider it something like a jury in a court of law, where people with absolutely no prior experience of the case make the decision, and people with supposed (or self-proclaimed) 'prior knowledge' are actively encouraged to put forwards their case but not make assessments. There are good reasons for encouraging and supporting a model of 'naive' assessment - many wikiprojects and other types of special interest groups often suffer from groupthink - certainly the assessment of the Samuel Johnson article appears to have done, and the people who work on it often get too close to the material to perceive the biases they encourage, and may indeed attempt to frame the entire debate inside of a singular discourse (be it derived from the practices of fandom or academia). Fortunately the active editors on the article have made some efforts to address my concerns, so there aren't really any practical concerns about openly naive assessments not being taken seriously by the community. -- Davémon ( talk) 11:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries. We're talking about FA assessments, not every edit, so the courtroom-metaphor is appropriate, the focus-groups we use in advertising serve similar functions and is a less emotive situation. It's also why I'm not arrogant enough to start making detailed suggestions for change on that article - I'm not an expert on it, but I can see the wider problem. As you say, similar issues (generally: too much technical or detailed information drowns out the general) appears with science and maths articles, Hydrogen is a good example, especially as there is good general information buried in amongst some more esoteric concepts, but the lead does manage to convey to the general reader a sense of significance (which Samuel Johnson failed to do). Is this enough to oppose an FA? yes I believe it is. I don't think it is a case of 'dumbing down' articles, but getting the balance right, and using linked articles to cover the detail. Perhaps a campaign/wikiproject focusing on getting editors to contribute to FA article nominations from outside their sphere of interest would be a good idea? -- Davémon ( talk) 18:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Check out Samuel Johnson. I removed 9k of text of his childhood and put it on its own page. I added 10k worth of text on his literary theory in order to establish what kind of critic he was. Awadewit thinks that I need to establish what kind of author he was, but he wasn't really an author, nor did he have styles. The only thing that can come close is his critical theory. I do not think I can meet your objection in the way that you worded it, but it is no longer just about his life. I also added more in the legacy section quoting three scholars that really talk about the importance of him as a scholar, plus his views on Shakespeare being lifted by Stendhal. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to work on the Shakespeare page. I have three books to add information from, but I've been distracted by a lot of various things right now. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to respond to your message.
Details (as in full title and authorship) for An Saol Mór are in a footnote to the main article: I haven't got ISBN or publication details, but you may be able to find these on Google. Alternatively, enter the title on www.used.addall.com, and you may strike lucky.
Is the Wikipedianity becoming altogether too Wikipedian? -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) ( talk) 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A response has been posted to your thread at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#At Swim-Two-Birds. Apologies for the very delayed response. Jennavecia (Talk) 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks! :D It doesn't take much effort to do any of that sort of stuff with Huggle, and it was mostly User:Enviroboy's doing. Most people at RfA will immediately "strong oppose" anybody who is a "Huggle-bot" though, so if I am ever nominated, my chances of passing will be slim to none. But I sure hope that I can pass RfA, one day in the future. I'm thinking...maybe around 6-7 months from now, I'll seriously consider a nom. miquonranger03 ( talk) 01:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your note. I looked again at the deleted article on Constance Congdon - there was no content other than a text list of the names of some of her plays. Still, there might be something usable in the page history. I can restore the deleted revisions in your userspace, where you can work on adding sources at your convenience. Once you feel the article is ready for prime time, you can just move it into article-space. Keeping it in your userspace gives you time and leeway to work on it without people putting deletion tags on it. If it's OK with you, I've created User:Lexo/Constance Congdon, which consists of the undeleted revisions of the article. If you'd rather not have it in your userspace, or you get tired of working on it, let me know or place a {{ db-userreq}} tag on it and I or another admin can delete it. I hope that addresses your request - if not, please let me know and we can work something out. MastCell Talk 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
A review of At Swim-Two Birds is finally done; good luck with the article! (See the review here.) Cheers! -talk- the_ed 17 -contribs- 00:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, I think now you are setting up false arguments. You say that because Hitler was a vegetarian, my logic suggests that articles on vegetarianism should include Hitler. That is a false conclusion. Why? Because things like eugenics is what was consistent with the overall Nazi philosophy. Indeed eugenics is consistent with the idea of the creation of a better race, something both the Nazis and Spartans strove for. Vegetarianism is on the other hand, the idea that some foods are more healthy than others. It has nothing in it that makes it specially consistent with Nazi philosophy.
It quite makes sense to include Hitler (the well known believer in the superiority of races) in an article about Sparta, but doesn't make sense to include him in an article about vegetarianism. If anything, many vegetarians are characterized by their disapproval of non-violence (towards animals). That is not what made Hitler a vegetarian, he simply thought it was healthier food (said something about vegetarian deers having more stamina than non-vegetarian lions).
LuxNevada ( talk) 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have read some (not all) Cartledge. As for his bias you don't really have to look far. Just start with the name of a book that claims the battle of Thermopylae changed the world. And this is your idea of a good historian?
I really think Cartledge is sometimes beyond stupid, like his comparison of Leonidas with the 9/11 hijackers. He writes pop history to create juvenile fantasies, as stupid as the movie 300 he was a consultant for.
I think we have 2 issues, so let's cut to the chase.
1) The treatment of Helots (ritual humiliation and killing during Cryptia) needs to be restored in the introduction.
2) The section on Eugenics and Hitler's admiration for Sparta needs to be restored. Check out the wiki article Eugenics. Guess who gets the maximum mention? It's Sparta. And that wiki article is written by other editors. It has no edits by me. Also in that article mention is made about Hitler's views of Sparta. It is a funny situation that this information is there in another article but you find that it should not be there is the original Sparta article.
Regards,
LuxNevada ( talk) 21:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has just deleted this edit of yours as a WP:COPYVIO, without saying where it was supposed to be from. The phrase is all over the net, very possibly copied from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Any thoughts? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your name listed at the project's page. If you find some time, could you run through Slovenian presidential election, 2007 and improve some styling? The article is a FAC at the moment and the only thing missing is some grammatical fixes, probably. Needs attention from a native speaker... Thanks a lot. -- Tone 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Thanksgiving! | |
Happy Thanksgiving Lexo! May God bless you and your family on this day! Scapler ( talk) 01:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you both. I believe we can get the article fo a FA soon. -- Tone 09:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen you around for a while, but I hope that you are having a good holiday and that you will be about next year. Thanks for all of your help. Ottava Rima ( talk) 05:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! As the editor who considerably expanded this article last November, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the lead needs to be rewritten because it follows the guidelines for film article leads, which I believe take precedence over guidelines for Wikipedia articles in general. Thank you. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Even with a delay of some months (!), I saw your review request in WP:GREECE. Are you still interested? If yes, I can review the article during the week-end.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw you appear on my watchlist recently. What have you been up to on the Wiki as of late? I put the Samuel Johnson early life page into FAC and I might try to get some of the other Johnson pages up to that level. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For clearing up my tags on Grégoire Ndahimana. -- 209.6.238.158 ( talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page 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. |
Thanks for your feedback! Burgess and Edelman are cited in Clissmann's book on O'Brien, I just missed that reference and added it. You are right that the Joyce references are more relevant the Somerset Maugham for Bildungsroman, and thanks for the tip on Father Fahrt as well.
I must say while I know and appreciate the need for the "no original research" rule, I find the borderline between "plot summary" and "no original research" a little tenuous. I can see why a claim like "The fact that Manus achieves easy success despite his lack of business ethics suggests O'Brien is critiquing capitalism" is clearly POV and original research, because there's nothing in the text that refers to capitalism. Research and thought is required to come up with this statement, banal though it is. Similarly, I know not to include a POV comment like "O'Brien's work is a shallow rehash of Joyce's Dubliners with less-sophisticated humour" because this requires independent thinking and judgement.
However, when it comes to stuff that is actually stated in the novel and which is verifiable, surely it's okay to describe what happens and make obvious comments using the primary source alone? The novel itself means the squalid environment many, many times; it is even subtitled "an exegesis of squalor", now surely it isn't original research to mention this fact?
When I set out to write the introduction, I remembered vaguely that specific years were mentioned at the start and the end of the novel. So I went through the text and found out the starting year (1890) and noticed that Finnbarr recalled being around four years old then, and the end year (1910) which is on Collopy's grave, just before Finnbarr leaves school. When I went to write this down, I noticed immediately that it was a nonsense statement, because Finnbarr couldn't be leaving school at twenty-four, and concluded that O'Brien must have got his chronology wrong. To me, this isn't individual research: it's just stating a contradiction that is evident in the text and verifiable by looking at the novel. Indeed, it would seem very odd to have these dates in the article WITHOUT commenting on this contradiction.
No-one will disagree with your point that O'Brien knew that 'Fahrt' meant 'to travel' in German, and this is a pun because he does "travel" (first to Ireland and then to Italy with Collopy), so I wouldn't count that as original research either. If you know German, it's pretty obvious. And I don't know that any critic has noticed that O'Brien seems to have got the words on Keats' gravestone wrong either, although, clearly, the photograph of Keats' gravestone is proof that O'Brien's version is incorrect. But if we take a very strict line on only including stuff that "no secondary literature has pointed out before" then presumably we couldn't either of these comments.
At grad school, one of my professors always reminds us that "original research must be something that a reasonable person could disagree with", meaning that you can't build a thesis around something that is obvious. The corollary is also true: anything that is so obvious that no reasonable person can disagree with it can hardly count as original research. Surely no reasonable person could object to the claim that squalor pervades the novel, or that twenty-four-old men are not still typically high school students. However, if the Wikipedia definition is different to that, then I'll try to adjust the article accordingly. Your advice would be appreciated :)
Thanks for enlightening me on Kraftwerk, I also thought the opening lines to that song were "Fun, fun, fun on the Autobahn." ! :)
Thanks Zorba the Geek ( talk) 05:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
As a fellow Flann O'Brien fan, I'm pleased to see you've been doing a lot of work on At Swim. If you're interested, I'd really appreciate it if you look over my new article on The Hard Life and let me know what you think. :)
Thanks, Zorba the Geek ( talk) 07:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC).
Hello, Lexo. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 14:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi There,
I saw your remarks on Travellers talkpage and thought I would drop you a line. The views and comments that are frequently expressed on that article are quite unsettling really and I usually have to revery vandalism a couple of times a week. I know in Ireland that travellers have a bad rep but it suprises me that people can't see that this article in meant to be objective and free of bar-rioom style rhetoric.
On another note, I enjoyed your article on Johnny Doran. By coincidence, I started an article on Ronan Browne recently (a fellow uileann piper). It was a stub but somebody (actually Ronan browne I beieve!) updated it considerably!
Anyhoo- Have a great day and hope to cross paths again sometime!
Downunda Downunda 02:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been working on Smells Like Teen Spirit to bring it to featured status. All that's really left is to clarify some citations. After searching through the page history, I was able to pinpoint you as the person who added the citation that Dave Marsh compared the song's riff to "Louie, Louie". I've checked out the original 1993 edition of the book from my library and it doesn't mention the riff at all; it only focuses on the lyrics. I noticed you cited the 2004 edition of the book; if you can add a page number to the citation that would be very helpful. Thanks. WesleyDodds 07:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{ User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.
A few features that you might find helpful:
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Nehrams2020 ( talk) 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey there,
great to hear that someone else is on board to edit the Finnegans Wake page, it needs all the contributors it can get, and things have been pretty quiet round those parts of late- welcome on board. I don't completely share your bleak view of the state of the page, as in my opinion it's a hundred times better than it was a year ago - then it was full of POV statements like "HCE is every man and his fall represents all falls" and the like, and now it's filled with referenced, concrete critical analyses of the text; so POV has been cut down alot, and most stuff is referenced. That being said, it still needs loads of work and is getting a bit cluttered, so a new pair of eyes and scissors would indeed do no end of good. I recommend that you be bold, and edit as you see fit, and if there's anything I disagree with, I'll just bring it up on the talk page and we can find a common consensus. I look forward to seeing your contributions! all the best Warchef ( talk) 11:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
but speaking of babies, i - serendipitously - hear mine crying now, so i'll continue my other points about how i think we should continue tomorrow. all the best. Warchef ( talk) 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The
May 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
20:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for informing me of this matter. As I understand Booker T. & the M.G.s is incorrect - I later tried to ammend the title however that resulted in multiple redirects and so would not allow me to do that. The title was based on the Green Onions cover, and not purely based on the correctness of the grammer. I did create a talk discussion here. The capitalised "T" on "The" I do agree is correct, however there are many references to the "MG's" without the fullstops. Do your references confirm that is it in fact Booker T. & The M.G.'s and not Booker T. & The MG's? - Arite ( talk) 10:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You spawned quite a discussion over at Nash equilibrium. Predictably and unfortunately, the discussants are people already very familiar with NE. Your continued input as someone new to the stuff would be helpful. Cretog8 ( talk) 08:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Find a reliable reference that it is in the key of E. WesleyDodds ( talk) 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"Radio Free Europe Score".
Fefogomez (
talk)
12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Frankly, I'm surprised the rhetoric isn't nastier than it is. Dppowell ( talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Lexo: regarding the stuff you deleted from the Freud article, although I'm not much inclined to restore it, I have to note that it's neither more nor less a violation of no original research than much else that remains in the article. Skoojal ( talk) 00:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking if there is a section that you don't want to do I could step up and try to do those. I could probably get to the library within a few days, plus we have the whole internet at our disposal (well, the reliable sites anyway). If there are topics that you know well, you should definately do those ones, I know very little so I could start anywhere you need me to. Black ngold29 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to leave this quick note - the updates are looking good. Just tell me when you are finished for the day and I will add some of my sources to it and some minor formatting stuff. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
T.S. Eliot's remarks on Vanity are found in the "Haslewood Press edition" in which he then "shows" how "the Vanity belongs in the artistic world defined by the poetry of Juvenal, Dryden, Pope, and Horace" according to Demaria on p. 131. I hope that helps. :)
Ottava Rima (
talk)
21:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I added and expanded
Life of Samuel Johnson. You might want to check it out, add things, etc. I'm about to put up a page on biographies of Johnson's life, including "biographies", "memoirs", "table talk", and "anecdotes" written by Johnson's contemporaries.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
00:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am interested. :) I have a little prep work for it, along with the title page image. Start, and I will follow, then you can clean up, etc, like before. :) Ottava Rima ( talk) 13:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Johnson began writing the play when he worked at his father's place in Lichfield, and increased working on the play in 1735 when he started his own school. He held off from writing the play in 1737. I'll add that appropriately. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Irene is starting to come together. Drop me a note if you need anything, or would like some more refs or background in particular areas. I could see what I can find. Ottava Rima ( talk) 16:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I want to apologize for baring teeth reflexively. I have had a rather bad history with the assessment teams, and I reacted instinctively. Please accept my most heartfelt apology.
After I bit, I then got distracted by a shiny ball and wandered off, which happens more and more these dog days. To be frank, the problem with repairing At Swim-Two-Birds is that when I began it, it was confined to common knowledge (meaning that it only stipulated things that could be found in more than three reference works), but the genius and odd editors that Wikipedia only rarely attracts came to work. There were people writing there who seemed to have not only knowledge but possession of O'Nolan's earliest works, people who had read him when he still wrote for the paper. And then we started to get people who wanted him to be a Hero of the Republic and those who wanted him to be a Disgrace to his People. This went on with the Flann O'Brien page and, to a lesser degree, At Swim-Two-Birds. I did little to stop all of it because, first, they had access to things that simply were rare. They also resented the heck out of anyone not overtly Irish having an opinion.
What worried me was that we might lose some of the really interesting stuff. If an overhauling editor simply excised anything not readily confirmed, we might lose some good material, but if he or she looked to confirm the facts present, we might do well.
I haven't gone to look over all the work you've done, but I will, and I do promise that I'll be a more reasonable beast than the one you first saw. (And Tale of a Tub -- I had done a great deal of work on it in life, and I tried to stay generally within what Guthkelch and Smith had given in their scholarly edition (OUP 1920, reprint 1958) and then keep the critical comments so far within what every reader can see (just close reading) or stuff that three or more critics have said (they all use their own patented phrases, but they're saying the same thing). I appreciate the compliment. It's still my favorite book.) Geogre ( talk) 12:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 04:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Victuallers ( talk) 13:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
They were put up, and in the next day the 7 pages related to biographies on Johnson were displayed on the main page. :) It was very Johnsonian. By the way, I started working on
The Plays of William Shakespeare. I'm still working on it, I just got distracted right now.
Ottava Rima (
talk)
00:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
If your taste is so perfect Lexo, you might as well do us the courtesy and share it. Nothing to say now except: lets see; mmm? Ceoil sláinte 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Lexo - I am with you on this and am trying to bash it into some sense but it is hard going. I have been concentrating on the biography which has been missing huge chunks of important material, while being bloated with someone's ideological takes. I have also been working on the last section, which is perhaps the place for points of views, but it is a hotch potch, and needs structure it. Meanwhile the bit in the middle is a jumble. This section needs to be stronger on his writing ("work" omits all his novels) and there is a political chunk that belongs in the last section, and then some genuine bits of legacy. I hope we can work together on this. No one seems to use the talk page except for their 5th form essays. Regards Motmit ( talk) 20:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lexo. I disagree with the frame of your question, 'what right do I have' - as far as I can see I don't need to have any special rights. I read several FA candidates and was motivated to comment by the lack of clarity in the article with regards the notability of the subject, and I thought "how is this article an FA? it doesn't even get the balance between significant and trivial right". Perhaps if more disinterested parties passed critisism on articles, fewer "crufty" articles would get written, let alone promoted. Hope that helps. I'll have another look at the article in a day or so and see if it is better balanced now. -- Davémon ( talk) 08:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
(I thought I'd already mentioned this) Perhaps you should consider it something like a jury in a court of law, where people with absolutely no prior experience of the case make the decision, and people with supposed (or self-proclaimed) 'prior knowledge' are actively encouraged to put forwards their case but not make assessments. There are good reasons for encouraging and supporting a model of 'naive' assessment - many wikiprojects and other types of special interest groups often suffer from groupthink - certainly the assessment of the Samuel Johnson article appears to have done, and the people who work on it often get too close to the material to perceive the biases they encourage, and may indeed attempt to frame the entire debate inside of a singular discourse (be it derived from the practices of fandom or academia). Fortunately the active editors on the article have made some efforts to address my concerns, so there aren't really any practical concerns about openly naive assessments not being taken seriously by the community. -- Davémon ( talk) 11:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No worries. We're talking about FA assessments, not every edit, so the courtroom-metaphor is appropriate, the focus-groups we use in advertising serve similar functions and is a less emotive situation. It's also why I'm not arrogant enough to start making detailed suggestions for change on that article - I'm not an expert on it, but I can see the wider problem. As you say, similar issues (generally: too much technical or detailed information drowns out the general) appears with science and maths articles, Hydrogen is a good example, especially as there is good general information buried in amongst some more esoteric concepts, but the lead does manage to convey to the general reader a sense of significance (which Samuel Johnson failed to do). Is this enough to oppose an FA? yes I believe it is. I don't think it is a case of 'dumbing down' articles, but getting the balance right, and using linked articles to cover the detail. Perhaps a campaign/wikiproject focusing on getting editors to contribute to FA article nominations from outside their sphere of interest would be a good idea? -- Davémon ( talk) 18:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Check out Samuel Johnson. I removed 9k of text of his childhood and put it on its own page. I added 10k worth of text on his literary theory in order to establish what kind of critic he was. Awadewit thinks that I need to establish what kind of author he was, but he wasn't really an author, nor did he have styles. The only thing that can come close is his critical theory. I do not think I can meet your objection in the way that you worded it, but it is no longer just about his life. I also added more in the legacy section quoting three scholars that really talk about the importance of him as a scholar, plus his views on Shakespeare being lifted by Stendhal. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to work on the Shakespeare page. I have three books to add information from, but I've been distracted by a lot of various things right now. Ottava Rima ( talk) 15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for taking so long to respond to your message.
Details (as in full title and authorship) for An Saol Mór are in a footnote to the main article: I haven't got ISBN or publication details, but you may be able to find these on Google. Alternatively, enter the title on www.used.addall.com, and you may strike lucky.
Is the Wikipedianity becoming altogether too Wikipedian? -- Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) ( talk) 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
A response has been posted to your thread at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback#At Swim-Two-Birds. Apologies for the very delayed response. Jennavecia (Talk) 18:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the thanks! :D It doesn't take much effort to do any of that sort of stuff with Huggle, and it was mostly User:Enviroboy's doing. Most people at RfA will immediately "strong oppose" anybody who is a "Huggle-bot" though, so if I am ever nominated, my chances of passing will be slim to none. But I sure hope that I can pass RfA, one day in the future. I'm thinking...maybe around 6-7 months from now, I'll seriously consider a nom. miquonranger03 ( talk) 01:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi - thanks for your note. I looked again at the deleted article on Constance Congdon - there was no content other than a text list of the names of some of her plays. Still, there might be something usable in the page history. I can restore the deleted revisions in your userspace, where you can work on adding sources at your convenience. Once you feel the article is ready for prime time, you can just move it into article-space. Keeping it in your userspace gives you time and leeway to work on it without people putting deletion tags on it. If it's OK with you, I've created User:Lexo/Constance Congdon, which consists of the undeleted revisions of the article. If you'd rather not have it in your userspace, or you get tired of working on it, let me know or place a {{ db-userreq}} tag on it and I or another admin can delete it. I hope that addresses your request - if not, please let me know and we can work something out. MastCell Talk 16:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
A review of At Swim-Two Birds is finally done; good luck with the article! (See the review here.) Cheers! -talk- the_ed 17 -contribs- 00:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Look, I think now you are setting up false arguments. You say that because Hitler was a vegetarian, my logic suggests that articles on vegetarianism should include Hitler. That is a false conclusion. Why? Because things like eugenics is what was consistent with the overall Nazi philosophy. Indeed eugenics is consistent with the idea of the creation of a better race, something both the Nazis and Spartans strove for. Vegetarianism is on the other hand, the idea that some foods are more healthy than others. It has nothing in it that makes it specially consistent with Nazi philosophy.
It quite makes sense to include Hitler (the well known believer in the superiority of races) in an article about Sparta, but doesn't make sense to include him in an article about vegetarianism. If anything, many vegetarians are characterized by their disapproval of non-violence (towards animals). That is not what made Hitler a vegetarian, he simply thought it was healthier food (said something about vegetarian deers having more stamina than non-vegetarian lions).
LuxNevada ( talk) 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have read some (not all) Cartledge. As for his bias you don't really have to look far. Just start with the name of a book that claims the battle of Thermopylae changed the world. And this is your idea of a good historian?
I really think Cartledge is sometimes beyond stupid, like his comparison of Leonidas with the 9/11 hijackers. He writes pop history to create juvenile fantasies, as stupid as the movie 300 he was a consultant for.
I think we have 2 issues, so let's cut to the chase.
1) The treatment of Helots (ritual humiliation and killing during Cryptia) needs to be restored in the introduction.
2) The section on Eugenics and Hitler's admiration for Sparta needs to be restored. Check out the wiki article Eugenics. Guess who gets the maximum mention? It's Sparta. And that wiki article is written by other editors. It has no edits by me. Also in that article mention is made about Hitler's views of Sparta. It is a funny situation that this information is there in another article but you find that it should not be there is the original Sparta article.
Regards,
LuxNevada ( talk) 21:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. An editor has just deleted this edit of yours as a WP:COPYVIO, without saying where it was supposed to be from. The phrase is all over the net, very possibly copied from Wikipedia, rather than the other way around. Any thoughts? -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 21:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I saw your name listed at the project's page. If you find some time, could you run through Slovenian presidential election, 2007 and improve some styling? The article is a FAC at the moment and the only thing missing is some grammatical fixes, probably. Needs attention from a native speaker... Thanks a lot. -- Tone 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Thanksgiving! | |
Happy Thanksgiving Lexo! May God bless you and your family on this day! Scapler ( talk) 01:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC) |
Thank you both. I believe we can get the article fo a FA soon. -- Tone 09:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen you around for a while, but I hope that you are having a good holiday and that you will be about next year. Thanks for all of your help. Ottava Rima ( talk) 05:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello! As the editor who considerably expanded this article last November, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the lead needs to be rewritten because it follows the guidelines for film article leads, which I believe take precedence over guidelines for Wikipedia articles in general. Thank you. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 20:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Even with a delay of some months (!), I saw your review request in WP:GREECE. Are you still interested? If yes, I can review the article during the week-end.-- Yannismarou ( talk) 09:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I saw you appear on my watchlist recently. What have you been up to on the Wiki as of late? I put the Samuel Johnson early life page into FAC and I might try to get some of the other Johnson pages up to that level. Ottava Rima ( talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For clearing up my tags on Grégoire Ndahimana. -- 209.6.238.158 ( talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |