Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 issue of the Novels 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. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I added Break of Reality to your desk. It needs to be checked for tone and either new work listed on its page or closed. I did cleanup work on it and I'm too close to tell if it is done. Please take a look at it or let me know and I'll assign it to someone else. RJFJR 02:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi - you've been to my page and made some editorial changes - plus added a few errors - no blame. I just would like to know how come, and if you're working to an agenda, perhaps vis-a-vis other similar pages. I can then adapt my updates to suit that agenda. Most of the stuff is well out of date, I didn't originate the entry, and as it's there, I may as well put the record straight and make the thing accurate and comprehensive
peter lemer
You wrote Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Kierkegaard , but you didn't sign your vote. Regards, TruthbringerToronto 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels 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. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
(Hope I am doing this at the right place). Thanks for the messages. I have been editing wikipedia articles anonymously for several years now, so I am not a total newbie, though the tags and templates sometimes still confuse me. Max robitzsch 00:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're the right person to be speaking to about this, but all of the Catullus poems I've seen on here have been edited by you; if you're not the right person, do you know who is? I'm a great fan of Catullus, and have been since school when I studied Latin and happened upon a copy of his Carmina. So, I must say first that I am glad to see that he has been duly represented here. However, I think that maybe the poems as they stand could do with some cleanup: standardising formatting, linking together properly (through "see also" links) etc. I was thinking that maybe making a Catullus infobox might work? It could turn into a very worthwhile project indeed. Anyway, not trying to be troublesome or overly critical, I just thought I'd point this out. Byrgenwulf 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You have created a number of articles about individual poems of Catullus featuring latin text and translation. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of source materials, and I don't believe most of the individual poems meet wikipedia's standards of motability. Please move these pages to wikisource. I'm also not sure if your english translations belong on the latin wikisource, but I could be wrong. Check their policies. -- Samael775 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Silence and I have got it into our heads to create some sort of standardized template for the things so they're more than what most of them presently are, which is translations. I'd rather see them viewed as stubs and works in progress than some violation of some policy that doesn't apply to other poems. Catullus 1 displays an example of what we consider to be a starter template.
I should also add that the reason we are including the Latin text is scansion, an important piece of analysis that is not found on Wikisource. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to having your support in this project. Sophy's Duckling 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
* It introduces a theory or method of solution; * It introduces original ideas; * It defines new terms; * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
Translation does not introduce a theory, translation does not introduce original ideas (it just makes them accessible to the English-speaking population--which is a point if not necessarily an easily linkable policy of Wikipedia). Translation does not define new terms, it merely puts existing Latin terms into existing English ones. Translation does not presume new definitions of pre-existing terms (that's why it's translation, not writing). Translation does not introduce an argument (the notes do, and you'll find if you get to Catllus in your Latin studies th at the notes presently included all are textbook ideas). Translation does not present an analysis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments. It does not introduce neologisms (again, otherwise it would not be translation). Thanks for your time, but it would be better spent expanding the articles. Sophy's Duckling 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
NOTICE: If you're here to give a third opinion, please give it at the talk page on WikiProject Catullus. It was just started, and we're trying to figure out an appopriate scope. I think a discussion there would be much more productive than on a soon-to-be-archived talk page of a user who is soon-to-be-gone. Thanks, Sophy's Duckling 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels 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. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have made a quick example of a "navigation infobox" thingy for the Catullus articles, which you can find here. Feel free to fix up, and in particular to add all the various articles to it (I'll be working through them and doing the same). Then it can be put in the template category, and placed on each Catullus article. This will allow readers to easily navigate through all of them without having a mammoth list of "see also" links. It also "cleans up", in that there aren't hundreds of little articles floating around all by themselves. What do you think? It could probably be made prettier, but Hell, at least it's a start... Byrgenwulf 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Dummy edit! Dummy edit! Please see the dummy edit, stupid javascript! dummy edit again! Sophy's Duckling 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
When you're done dummy editing, you might want to have a look at WikiProject Catullus. I was thinking about it this afternoon, the project would definitely be in order...especially so discussions about whether the poems must stay or go are not fragmented over a thousand talk pages (well, actually I'd be surprised if a thousand people in the world cared about Catullus, but anyway).
Please add to the project page, and start getting it into shape: I just added a generic templatey thing to it. I think it would be best, as well, to discuss there what will happen to the various poems.
I hope my posting hasn't confused the stupid javascript. Byrgenwulf 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa...you should really stop whatever it is you are doing. You can't turn all those poem articles into redirects, it destroys the article histories. Adam Bishop 06:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for being willing to negotiate. And yes, I do need to contribute more to the main namespace. I am currently working on a better referenced, more NPOV version of The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Anyway, I want you to know that original translations are allowed on wikisource, so you are welcome to publish your translations there. I think that your texts are more appropriate there, wikisource was founded as a repository for source texts because wikipedia decided not to allow them. At present, english wikisource allows only english texts, but I think they would accept something like the table on Catullus 1. I would prefer you put your translations on english wikisource, as most english-speaking users will look there for transltions. -- Samael775 15:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 issue of the Novels 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. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I added Break of Reality to your desk. It needs to be checked for tone and either new work listed on its page or closed. I did cleanup work on it and I'm too close to tell if it is done. Please take a look at it or let me know and I'll assign it to someone else. RJFJR 02:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi - you've been to my page and made some editorial changes - plus added a few errors - no blame. I just would like to know how come, and if you're working to an agenda, perhaps vis-a-vis other similar pages. I can then adapt my updates to suit that agenda. Most of the stuff is well out of date, I didn't originate the entry, and as it's there, I may as well put the record straight and make the thing accurate and comprehensive
peter lemer
You wrote Keep at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Kierkegaard , but you didn't sign your vote. Regards, TruthbringerToronto 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels 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. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 13:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
(Hope I am doing this at the right place). Thanks for the messages. I have been editing wikipedia articles anonymously for several years now, so I am not a total newbie, though the tags and templates sometimes still confuse me. Max robitzsch 00:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're the right person to be speaking to about this, but all of the Catullus poems I've seen on here have been edited by you; if you're not the right person, do you know who is? I'm a great fan of Catullus, and have been since school when I studied Latin and happened upon a copy of his Carmina. So, I must say first that I am glad to see that he has been duly represented here. However, I think that maybe the poems as they stand could do with some cleanup: standardising formatting, linking together properly (through "see also" links) etc. I was thinking that maybe making a Catullus infobox might work? It could turn into a very worthwhile project indeed. Anyway, not trying to be troublesome or overly critical, I just thought I'd point this out. Byrgenwulf 18:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
You have created a number of articles about individual poems of Catullus featuring latin text and translation. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of source materials, and I don't believe most of the individual poems meet wikipedia's standards of motability. Please move these pages to wikisource. I'm also not sure if your english translations belong on the latin wikisource, but I could be wrong. Check their policies. -- Samael775 03:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Silence and I have got it into our heads to create some sort of standardized template for the things so they're more than what most of them presently are, which is translations. I'd rather see them viewed as stubs and works in progress than some violation of some policy that doesn't apply to other poems. Catullus 1 displays an example of what we consider to be a starter template.
I should also add that the reason we are including the Latin text is scansion, an important piece of analysis that is not found on Wikisource. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to having your support in this project. Sophy's Duckling 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
* It introduces a theory or method of solution; * It introduces original ideas; * It defines new terms; * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.
Translation does not introduce a theory, translation does not introduce original ideas (it just makes them accessible to the English-speaking population--which is a point if not necessarily an easily linkable policy of Wikipedia). Translation does not define new terms, it merely puts existing Latin terms into existing English ones. Translation does not presume new definitions of pre-existing terms (that's why it's translation, not writing). Translation does not introduce an argument (the notes do, and you'll find if you get to Catllus in your Latin studies th at the notes presently included all are textbook ideas). Translation does not present an analysis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments. It does not introduce neologisms (again, otherwise it would not be translation). Thanks for your time, but it would be better spent expanding the articles. Sophy's Duckling 18:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
NOTICE: If you're here to give a third opinion, please give it at the talk page on WikiProject Catullus. It was just started, and we're trying to figure out an appopriate scope. I think a discussion there would be much more productive than on a soon-to-be-archived talk page of a user who is soon-to-be-gone. Thanks, Sophy's Duckling 15:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The August 2006 issue of the Novels 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. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/ (Desk) 10:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have made a quick example of a "navigation infobox" thingy for the Catullus articles, which you can find here. Feel free to fix up, and in particular to add all the various articles to it (I'll be working through them and doing the same). Then it can be put in the template category, and placed on each Catullus article. This will allow readers to easily navigate through all of them without having a mammoth list of "see also" links. It also "cleans up", in that there aren't hundreds of little articles floating around all by themselves. What do you think? It could probably be made prettier, but Hell, at least it's a start... Byrgenwulf 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Dummy edit! Dummy edit! Please see the dummy edit, stupid javascript! dummy edit again! Sophy's Duckling 19:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
When you're done dummy editing, you might want to have a look at WikiProject Catullus. I was thinking about it this afternoon, the project would definitely be in order...especially so discussions about whether the poems must stay or go are not fragmented over a thousand talk pages (well, actually I'd be surprised if a thousand people in the world cared about Catullus, but anyway).
Please add to the project page, and start getting it into shape: I just added a generic templatey thing to it. I think it would be best, as well, to discuss there what will happen to the various poems.
I hope my posting hasn't confused the stupid javascript. Byrgenwulf 19:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa...you should really stop whatever it is you are doing. You can't turn all those poem articles into redirects, it destroys the article histories. Adam Bishop 06:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for being willing to negotiate. And yes, I do need to contribute more to the main namespace. I am currently working on a better referenced, more NPOV version of The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Anyway, I want you to know that original translations are allowed on wikisource, so you are welcome to publish your translations there. I think that your texts are more appropriate there, wikisource was founded as a repository for source texts because wikipedia decided not to allow them. At present, english wikisource allows only english texts, but I think they would accept something like the table on Catullus 1. I would prefer you put your translations on english wikisource, as most english-speaking users will look there for transltions. -- Samael775 15:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)