User talk:Pichote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Cato[edit]

Thanks for your message, Pichote. No, I don't want to revert it. It's good material, though the 19th century English took me aback at first! I'm sure Cato would have approved of some stirring old-fashioned language, especially in his praise. Getting it all in there, with the references too, was an excellent step. Andrew Dalby 19:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again for your remarks, Andrew. I will try to update the old-fashioned vocabulary (to the current standards) of Mr. Smith. -- Pichote 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You asked about the "bust of Cato", Pichote. No, I don't know where it is, or what the authority is for identifying it as Cato! I wish I did. On the image page the linked website uses the photo but doesn't say it's Cato, and actually has another bust, looking quite different, which they do identify as Cato. Andrew Dalby 09:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the information, Andrew. I usually watch the pages where I leave a message so you really would not need to post your answer in my talk page for me to notice it. :) Currently the indicia show that the bust is either in the British Museum of London or the Musei Capitolini of Rome... But is it really of Cato? Well, I will try to find out it. -- Pichote 09:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde Edit[edit]

Apologies, through ignorance I neglected to explain the removal of the categories. My rationale was that OW, although a resident of England, was born in Ireland, was Irish and considered himself distinctly not English. Therefore the categories of English Poet etc. are incorrect. I've put this up for discussion in the Talk section. Gary 83.67.41.138 11:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't apologize. You have to be bold. :) Besides, other editors will be pleased to deal with the whole question in the talk page because... that's the way we do it! ;) -- Pichote 12:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Your wasting of my time[edit]

Please disist. I'm not sure if you're aware, but in some cases we can claim an image under a fair use rationale if there is no other available replacement available. Cartimandua died in Roman times, there is no other artistic depiction of her based on how people looked in that period. Your comment "Is this painting contemporary? Draw your own (free) depiction of her" is not only ludicrous but really stupid I have to say... draw one?? I'm not a professional artist, I'm not a painter of Celtic historical figures. If "draw one" was a good enough reason not to claim an image under fair use rationale, then the fair use system would not exist on Wikipedia at all. Stop wasting both of our time with this ridiculousness... unless of course you plan on paying for contractor artist to paint a free replacement, then I suggest you do something more constructive instead of trying to destruct articles and images with full, indepth rationales. - Yorkshirian (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. And it is desist and not disist*. -- Pichote (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ostinato[edit]

Greetings! Today I read the Ostinato article without having any significant previous knowledge of the subject. I can say that I did not develop any real understanding of the subject until I had read the "Famous Examples" section. I was therefore perturbed to see the "Famous Examples" had been marked with one of those odious boxes discouraging "Trivia" sections (which seem to be in every Wikipedia article nowadays, have you noticed?) Anyway, I decided (and explained in the article's Talk page) that examples are not trivia, and that listing a few well-chosen examples that the reader is likely to be familiar with is an excellent way of describing a musical/audio element such as "ostinato". Indeed, I feel the section is crucial. So I removed the Trivia box you installed last month, and I hope you're okay with that.

Having said that, I also think the "Famous Examples" section could use some work. And there may be a thin line, up ahead, between "a few useful examples" and "a tedious list of everybody's favorite example". So, there's that to watch out for, but I still don't think the anti-trivia box is necessary. Hope you appreciate the courtesy of informing you of this change. --63.25.125.29 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think that the key point of the antitrivia warning is to emphasize the fact that there is a better approach to present such information. Probably a Famous Examples section (but containing truly famous, groundbreaking examples) should be the right way to accomplish that. -- Pichote (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)