User talk:Lexo/Archive 1

The Hard Life

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).

Looking for articles to work on?

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 Lexo!

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)

Smells Like Teen Spirit

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)

Thanks, I just wanted to make sure all the sources I didn't add checked out before going to FAC! WesleyDodds 10:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

ARI

You might want to look at what's going on at Ayn Rand Institute. ThAtSo 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome

Welcome!

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:

• Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.

• The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for April has been published. May's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
• Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
• Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!

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)

I assessed the article as Start class, please see the talk page for directions in improving it further. Thanks for the compliment on my user page by the way, and don't worry, this is what Republicans do. Don't believe that crazy media or the occasional vandalism to the Republican Party article! If you have any questions about improving the article, let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Finnegans Wake

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)

Hey, just on my way out the door, but just wanted to post quickly to say welcome back - your most recent edits are, as always, right on the money. I agree on the "background" section - it's just patchy and horrible and poorly cobbled together. At the moment - being a bit more happy with the plot section (for now, though there's still nothing on 1.7, and the section on 1.3-1.4 is relatively unclear - and III.4 probably deserves a better summary as well) - i'm trying to think what should be done on the characters section, as it's not exactly very informative, just sort of confusing - especially to someone who had no knowledge of FW; so i'm just looking through the secondary literature to see if i can find any decent quotes which sum up the characters. I still haven't read Kitchner - does he have any good qutes ertaining to background plot or character that we could add? in any case, i'll get back to you and respond fully later. all the best Warchef (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've always been somewhat skeptical, personally, of the Porters theory as a) i don't believe III.4 breaks with the dream language of FW to enough of a degree to really warrant that it is not a part of the dream (although I also have an 18 month old baby and have lots of experience of such half-awakened half-conscious middle of the night semi-awakening; but couldn't that also be just an aspect of a dreamer conscious - or semi-conscious - of the fact that he has to wake up soon) and b) if III.4 presents some kind of "reality" outside th book, the argument could be made, just as legitimately, that's it's Shem's dream, as he is the one who wakes from the nightmare of seeing the big bad "pawdrag" in the chapter. My guess is that III.4 is a Mise en abyme and doesn't really reflect a reality outside of the the book's "dream narrative" - which of course has nothing to do with how we should progress with the article, but is just offered by way of conversation.

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)

WikiProject Films May 2008 Newsletter

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)

Booker T. & the M.G.s/Booker T. & The M.G.'s

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)

Obviously the title has been spelled many ways over the years, but the majority of releases during the band's lifetime contain at least the apostrophe (which is undoubtedly bad punctuation, but which is the most common way of spelling the name). Here is how the band's name is spelt and punctuated on thirteen albums released during their lifetime - I have not included compilations, on the grounds that most of them would have been issued without the band's approval, I have not included the MG's album as it wasn't with the full band, and I can't make out the spelling on the cover of the Universal Language album:

Green Onions - Booker T. & The M.G.s

Soul Dressing - Booker T. & The MGs

Hip Hug-Her - Booker T. & The MG's

And Now! - BOOKER T. & THE MG'S

In The Christmas Spirit - Booker T. & The MG'S

Stax/Volt Revue Live in Norway - Booker T. & The M.G.'s

Back To Back - BOOKER T. AND THE MG'S

Doin' Our Thing - BOOKER T. & THE MG'S

Soul Limbo - Booker T. & The M.G.'s

The Booker T. Set - Booker T. & The M.G.'s

Up Tight_(Original Soundtrack) - BOOKER T. AND THE M.G.S

Melting Pot - Booker T. & The M.G.'s

That's the Way It Should Be - Booker T & the MG's

In seven out of thirteen cases the name is spelt MG rather than M.G.; ten out of thirteen use the apostrophe. The most common form (the mode, in this particular distribution) is Booker T. & The M.G.'s. Only in the case of the 90s album is 'the' not spelt with a capital T. I concede that it would violate WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH to argue that this proves how the band liked to spell their name, but I am arguing that there is a good case here for renaming the article while recognising within in it that there is no definitive spelling of the name. Thanks for your prompt and courteous reply, btw. Lexo (talk) 15:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nash equilibrium

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)

Radio Free Europe

Find a reliable reference that it is in the key of E. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You should look up an R.E.M. songbook, because unfortunately we can't go by what you say it is, because you aren't a publised, verified source. I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, it's just that we can't make changes to the article based on what editors say. As far as I know, none of the IRS-era songs have never been transcribed, though. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to tell me that we can't include a non-verified source, but all I'm saying is that whatever published source describes A as the tonic of E is inaccurate. We can't include something that is blatantly inaccurate even if it just happens to have been published. How reputable is the book? Is it written by a musician? Lexo (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Leo, I hope this message don't offend your opinions. I just uploaded the song in MID format to a MIDI score analizer. The ONLY key which removes ALL flats and sharps from all staves is the A key: (F#,C#,#G). Notice, I don't know everything, I am just telling you my findings. Fefogomez (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Radio Free Europe Score". Fefogomez (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, although I fail to see how it's relevant... Lexo (talk) 13:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Leo, Thanks for your openmindedness. I read your message and see exactly what you mean. I think the point lays in noticing that no D# is played during the whole melody (which would turn it into a E major based melody); only D natural is played, what makes it be in the key of A.

It's a trick to the ear that many good musicians use, that is, composing a song say in C major, but no B in the whole melody, only B flats, what gives you the impression that something quite strange is going on. But all, in all, I agree with your comments.

BTW, a score analyzer, regurgitates the key and chords (not always accurately) for your input digitized song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fefogomez (talk • contribs) 17:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Travellers talk page

No problem. Frankly, I'm surprised the rhetoric isn't nastier than it is. Dppowell (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Freud

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)

Re:Sparta

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. Blackngold29 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Lexo, if you are doing a re-write, then you should probably consider not deleting any of the referenced material that is already present (though you can certainly re-arrange). That way there will probably be less resistance. Good luck with the re-write. LuxNevada (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, and wishing you good luck once again with your efforts. LuxNevada (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Vanity

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)

P.S. I added some references to Wain on the Johnson biography page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:39, 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)

While you were working on Irene, I created/expanded the following: Life of Samuel Johnson (1787), Thraliana, Life of Samuel Johnson, and List of contemporary accounts of Samuel Johnson's life. I'll add some small stuff to Irene shortly. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I was guessing you had that slant from the lead, so I added that long quote from Bate in (in its entirety) just for you. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason why I put it in the lead is that you have alternate possibilities there (I was going to create a redirect from it, since it was the title of a play that was performed for 9 days and in 18th century records as such), and you don't bold titles later on per the MoS guidelines. It is just nice to distinguish play (written) and play (performed). Also, I had the other statement before about what it was based on because of the summary style of the lead. It was choppy, but thats just why it was originally there. Thanks for the edits and fixes. I'll add some more detail from other sources after you finish. I also have most of the first edition in image format if needed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:30, 13 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)

In this edit you forgot to carry over the last paragraph, which contains vital information on production dates, publication, income, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure you knew. :) I tend to miss things like that during shuffles. Now, for pictures, you could include a picture of Johnson, Tetty, or Garrick. I think those could fit. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:elcobbola. He seems to be our resident expert. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 15:22, 15 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)

Apologies

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)

DYK

On 15 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Vanity of Human Wishes, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 04:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

On 20 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Irene (play), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--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)

You can edit and fix some things. I just wanted you to know that the page deals with Johnson's edition and I stopped half way through adding sources. :) As for the Drapier's Letters, I almost have that to FA standard, and I tracked down three more books to add some more to the article. If you didn't want to edit directly on an article, you can always post on a talk page with various problematic lines and solutions. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised! John Wain published "Johnson as Critic" which contains the complete notes and preface for Johnson's edition. Its rather cheap if you can track down a used copy. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a read over the letters. I think I covered many of those kinds of things. Point out anything missing on the talk page and I'll see what I can do. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Well well

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)

Orwell

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)

Thanks - I have got Taylor, Shelden and Crick bios. Also Buddicom "Eric & Us", and Wadhams "Remembering Orwell". Also Connolly "Enemies of Promise" and Beaton diaries. Between us that is a pretty good set. Taylor seems a pretty sound bio which I am using as a basis. Early bios really annoy me when they fill in his life with assumptions from his writings. It strikes me more and more that if we get the bio right - and it should be completely objective - everything falls into place. I like the editing you have done so far. Regards from sunny Surrey. Motmit (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lexo - thanks for the note. Re the multiple updates, I have arranged for the semi-protect to be put back. A previous admin took it off just before he stopped working on wiki (nice of him) so all hell broke loose. Orwell has some sort of appeal for malcontent teenagers, so rubbish is pretty inevitable as you say. The bio is getting long, but I am trying to limit it to the things that are really pertinant for his work and character. The chunk in the middle on his work is where the problem lies and I don't plan to touch that for a while. Regards Motmit (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi - Sounds good to me. I lobbed a chunk out of the bio into the work last time, but you probably won't thank me if I do it again, especially with the 40's coming up. If there is anything there you want to rescue go ahead, but I suspect you wont complain if most of it makes way for hard facts of his life. Regards Motmit (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that quote etc wasn't mine - it was a chunk of text already there that I thought worth keeping but not in the bio- as you say Bowling isnt Orwell and it could be deemed misleading to infer that he is (although interestingly it highlights Orwell's classical education). Regards Motmit (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson

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)

I'm adding a page on his morality and his politics to expand on them. I might add a page on his criticism, and trim the current section a little, possibly turn it into "philosophy" in general, have his three literary philosophies (biography, critical, poetic) along with his political (tory, anti-slavery) and moral (Anglican, rational). I have some other books that go into Vanity and some other works that I will put quotes in the talk pages and you can help me figure out how to incorporate them. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I can cater to your schedule anyway you need. :) I'll leave some information and you can feel free to take your time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 4 September

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)

An Béal Bocht

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)

I was referring, of course, to the Gaeligores who found the Gaelicism of Corkadorky altogether too Gaelic. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFF

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)

re:thanks

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)

Oh, it certainly does. It makes everything RC-and-NP-related incredibly elementary to do. However, as I said, use of automated tools has a severely destructive effect on any RfA. miquonranger03 (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Constance Congdon

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)

Review is finally done.

A review of At Swim-Two Birds is finally done; good luck with the article! (See the review here.) Cheers! ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 00:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

{{tb}}

Hello, Lexo. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sparta

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)

Yeah, the "disapproval of non-violence" was a typo (or maybe a double-negative for emphasis?). My point is that Nazi Laconophilia is worthy of inclusion in an article about Sparta given the prevalence of knowledge about things Nazi in the modern times. Also given that most Spartans were Helots, it seems right to mention their condition briefly in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuxNevada (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lexo, I have been over this quite a few times, and I am repeating it again. The introduction needs a concise description of the situation of the Helots. Phrases like "heavily subjugated" are weasel words. The intro needs mention that they were ritually humiliated and killed during the Crypteria without consequences. You seem very interested in avoiding mention of this information. Other information that you include (like friction with others due to treatment of Helots, skilled and unskilled labor) is secondary to this information. I do not know what to make of your insistence in avoiding this information in the introduction. The Spartan apologist Cartledge (one among hundreds of modern historians) appears five times in the introduction whereas the information that I added sourced on Plutarch (one of very few historical sources) has been deleted. This is an absurd situation. LuxNevada (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you have also deleted other information about the treatment of helots (like their being forced to wear dogskin). You have also prefaced much of the information with apologies, like "This is the only mass killing of helots on record", "they were relatively privileged". You also use euphemisms like "without the risk of ritual pollution". It is quite possible to find many apologist historians, but to quote only them is a mistake. The information about Nazis and Hitler's admiration for the Spartans' treatment of the Helots needs to be restored. LuxNevada (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you have read a lot about Sparta and are passionate about the topic. I doubt if my edits are due to some subconscious anger. I do admit finding movies like 300 with its silly claim that Spartans fought for an ideal of freedom to be annoying. They fought for no ideals greater than their own freedom and the continued slavery of those they oppressed. Movies like these seem to promote idiotic mindless violent fantasies (300 against a million, come on!), appeal to closet fascists, and are promoted by Spartan apologists like Cartledge.

I think you are making a mistake when you bring in slavery in other parts of Greece to justify your edits. The proper thing to do would be to put that information in other Greek articles (say Athens) rather than try to minimize it in an article on Sparta by saying "Everybody was doing it, so it is no big deal".

I made a mistake, you did not remove sourced information about Helots being forced to wear dogskin. This information, though true, was not there to be removed. The source is Myron ""They assign to the Helots every shameful task leading to disgrace. For they ordained that each one of them must wear a dogskin cap (κυνῆ / kunễ) and wrap himself in skins (διφθέρα / diphthéra) and receive a stipulated number of beatings every year regardless of any wrongdoing, so that they would never forget they were slaves. Moreover, if any exceeded the vigour proper to a slave's condition, they made death the penalty; and they allotted a punishment to those controlling them is they failed to rebuke those who were growing fat". You did remove sourced information about Helots being put to death for getting fat.

Eugenics and the oppression of other races/communities are indeed characteristics shared by the Spartans and the Nazis. It is not that because they share these characteristics that they are completely the same. Obviously they are different in many ways, but similar in some. The fact that Hitler took the Spartans as his model is enough reason to include this information. LuxNevada (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the Nazis treatment of the Greeks, it is something I am quite aware of. The ratio of Greeks civilians killed in retaliation for one German soldier was 100:1. It was 10:1 in Nordic countries. Anyway, not sure how all this means that the world should not be made aware of Spartan treatment of Helots or Hitler's professed admiration for Spartans. LuxNevada (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You wrote "I notice that you are far less interested in the fact that the helots eventually gained their freedom". I am not sure the basis for this accusation. I never objected to any such information being included. By all means add whatever you have about their eventual freedom. LuxNevada (talk) 09:39, 8 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)

I am starting to get an unfortunate feeling. It seems you raise an objection, I answer, and you come back and raise the same objection again. You write again "You do not seem to understand that Hitler is not a reliable source". This is something I have already dealt with in an earlier post when I said that I am not treating Hitler as the source of news, but rather news itself.

The article of Eugenics has maximum mention about Sparta compared to other ancient civilizations you mention. Obviously Eugenics and Sparta are related (why else is there much mention of Sparta in the Eugenics article) but you seem intent on whitewashing the Sparta article.

I feared we would come to this situation about this article when I left a message for you months back. You write "you do not understand the basic nature of Wikipedia. It is not up to us to decide, as you appear to have done, that the Spartans must have been like the Nazis if only because Hitler said that he admired them...". This is so absurd that I can't think of where to begin. Nowhere do I write "Spartans like Nazis". Including information about Hitler's admiration for Sparta doesn't make that any more true than my admiration for Bismark makes me German.

I wish you actually read my replies, my answers to the points you raise, rather than continuing to write volumes over and over again.

Regards, LuxNevada (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You write about my edits "They were not a result of any agreement we have come to". Pray may I ask "Did you come to an agreement with me before you made changes to the existing article?" LuxNevada (talk) 02:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As for the title of your post "Persistent inclusion of the same material", do you realize it can equivalently be titled "Persistent exclusion of the same (sourced) material"? LuxNevada (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to George Orwell

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)

Done some research: your addition seems to have come first and I will revert the deletion. Please add your comment on the article talk page. Best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Some help with copyediting

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)

I see you are helping with the article also, thank you, as I am far to full of turkey to copyedit at the moment. Also, since you are Irish, you edits will be superior to mine...sadly, my family left Ireland three generations ago. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, tis indeed Thanksgiving, I am officially stuffed with turkey, pumpkin pie, and spoonbread! Oh, and even though you are Irish, in the interest of wikilove:

		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)

Merry Christmas

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)

The Way We Were

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)

I expanded the lead slightly. FYI, I didn't write the second paragraph. It was the work of a previous editor and I felt uncomfortable removing it. LiteraryMaven (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I never liked the second paragraph either, but as I said I felt uncomfortable removing it because I didn't want to delete someone else's work. Given we now have two people feeling it's inappropriate for an encyclopedia article (it always sounded more analytical than factual in tone to me), I'm going to remove it. Thanks for your feedback! LiteraryMaven (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sparta

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)

Hey

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)

I'm doing fine. Busy with some on Wiki stuff as you can see from my talk page, archives, and user page. Not much in real life. I'm sorry to hear about the job. That is a real shame. :( Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For clearing up my tags on Grégoire Ndahimana. -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)