User talk:Mtevfrog: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:16, 5 February 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Mtevfrog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! HighInBC 23:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Derrida

As I said on Talk:Jacques Derrida: You're doing a good job editing and clarifying the Jacques Derrida article, but please try not to delete so much material. Your last few edits in particular have removed a large amount of material that was clearly salvageable, and still informative and useful despite its muddiness. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kofman

I'll see what I can do to reflect your suggestions when I'm finally able to submit the changes that the proxies refuse to accept. You're right to insist that addressing her autobiographical writing requires a certain delicacy, and I shouldn't wish to cause disinterest in so doing, any more than I would want to fail to draw interest it richly but patiently deserves. Kofman is one of those figures who exacerbates the difficulties in articulating relations between life and work.

I didn't want to be flagged for original research in attempting to contrast her with Cixous as someone who so often writes autobiography as fiction. One might begin by saying that Kofman felt the need to do so much other work before she thought she could write Rue Ordener, rue Labat and that she wrote it in a way that seemed to set it apart from all her other writing. With a good deal more work, one could try to articulate this with Smothered Words and the significance of the particular respect accorded to Blanchot in that work. One might try as well to indicate whether the collection of essay in honour of Kofman is entitled Enigmas not only in tribute to her work but in characterising her generally. Not sure yet, but I'll keep reading and do what I can to reflect that reading in the article. Buffyg 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing on Being and Time

See my message on the talk page of that article. Dbuckner 19:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverting on B&T

Thanks for your thoughful comment on my talk page. I do not consider myself to be more competent on articles than certain others. My point of view on certain issues may not be completely conformist to the kinf of editorship wiki-philosophy is attracting, this is another matter. As to scholarship levels, perhaps both yourself and the user, 2917(?) have high levels of scholarship, I'm of the opinion that you do. However this may be a problem insofars as it is some attempt to "show scholarship" and write for scholars thus ignoring other wiki readers.

As to reverting wholesale. It was I who was first reverted wholesale. Importantly, and aside from trying to compare titles of scholarship etc., when I made my edits I gave very explicit reasons for them on the talk page. Yet reversions persisted without a single comment to talk. This shows arogance and not scholarship. I do not consider the direction the B&T page is taking to be the right one, it is trying to summarise whole swaths of a very difficult text in few paragraphs of idiosyncratic language. The direction I wish to take the page is pedagogical (just look at the talk page on Continental there to see the difficulties and objections even analytic philosophers find here). -- Lucas (Talk) 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Kiarostami

Thanks for helping out (the article needs it). Just two points, though: first, the naming convention is that preositions aren't capitalised in a title unless they're the first or last words, or part of a phrasal verb. The title of the film should therefore be "Close-Up". Secondly:

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mtevfrog and thanks for your helps. Please also see the ongoing discussions here. User: Melitis continuously reverted Ernst Stavro Blofeld and me calling us unexperienced editors! Sangak 10:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact I didn't call them that (I said that Sangak shouldn't just revert more experienced editors without discussion). It appears that Sangak is unclear about the notions of plagiarism and copyright-violation, as well as the Manual of Style. That's OK, so long as he's prepared to learn (and the MoS in particular is long and complicated, and sometimes changes, so ignorance of it is no shame; I get it wrong on occasion too), but he seems too emotionally overwrought at the moment to stop and consider the situation.

Again, though, thanks for your work on the article; it's slowly getting to an acceptable standard. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the highly experienced user Elitis who first reverted Ernst Stavro Blofeld with no explanation on the talk pages. I just rv it back to Ernst Stavro Blofeld. That's all. Sangak 11:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have been asked to step in and help out the serious bias!! issue on the Iranian film director. Please see my comments on the user talks page of the editors concerned and you'll see I absolutely agree there is amajor problem with the neuatrality and copywright in places. I am trying to rectify the problem asap to please respect my editing -I have rewritten to very beginning to 1974 so far its reading a lot better already -but the bulk of the article needs restructuring , copyright editing and professional sourcing. It needn't be a massacre as you suggested but rather a major problem that can be addressed very quickly with some quality editing between us. I hope you'll respect this. THe section for critical acclaim at the bottom I have tagged again so you won't delete- this will be neuatrlaized -surely the direcotr has had negatv ecriticsim - I hope the paragrpah will develop my addressing both sides ofhis reception also looking at his controversy - a neutral encyclopedic stand point which I will achive as soon as I can. Al the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But look I am not going to bother if you think I am "undermining" something. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

i see what you mean; the almost hysterical flurry of editing has introduced lots of errors, plus more PoV language, and has reverted much of the work you and I had already done. Hardly any of it has even an edit summary, and none is properly explained anywhere. Experience tells me that we're not going to get anywhere while this is going on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as long as Etitis considers others "hysterical" , praises his own eidts and a few minutes of his "works" and is reluctant to reply questions to editors who spent days on the article, nothing will work. Sangak 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mtevfrog

I spent a long time on this topic. I barely knew anything about it before. I studied hard and wrote a draft. I was working to bring it to good status. Then I have been criticised by Etitis. I understood I will not be allowed to work. then I decided to invite others to step in and help so that it is not my pov. I can not do anything else but inviting people totake part. I don't want to be insulted any more. I have never felt insulted during 2.5 years of being a wikipedian. Sangak 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what I should do. I am just tired. I asked more than 10 other editors to come and help. I wish I was a native speaker and I could write the article in my own words easily. I am just too tired. Thanks anyways. Sangak 19:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I leave the article for now to take a rest. I really need it.Sangak 19:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Lucas

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Thanks for letting me know. Roughly speaking, one editor (on whose RfA I voted "oppose" incidentally, partly because of this article, which may explain some of his emotionalism) is introducing poor English, while the other is introducing PoV language (though there's some overlap in their roles). I hope that, when the frantic editing has calmed down, it will be possible to go to the article and try to start cleaning up after them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I stupid to introduce poor English to an article I spent days on it? Am I stupid to intentionally destroy an iconic figure of my country because someone voted negative for me? It is clear who is emotional here. Etitis needs along time to become a good wikipedian. He does not even follow very basic rules of wikipedia like assuming good faith. Now I understand why some of my friend left wikipedia forever. Sangak 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely certain what you mean, but I haven't mentioned stupidity, nor have I suggested that you deliberately introduced poor English; you did so because English isn't your first language, and you're somewhat weak in it. No problem in itself; the trouble is that you kicked up such a fuss when I tried to correct things (and especially with regard to removing copyright violations), and that you've edited the article so intensively that it's going to be a big job to clean it up. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being and Time

I sincerely hope you reconsider your decision to leave Being and Time for a while. Your edits are some of the most accurate and well-sourced that I can tell, and the group would really benefit from your knowledge of the material. I myself usually ignore disputes and stick to the content of articles, often times just waiting the few days it takes for emotionally charged editors to wander off, but I wanted to let you know in any case, that your hardwork is appreciated. Be well, and good luck in the future. - Sam 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 63: / Line 63: @@
 ::I'm not entirely certain what you mean, but I haven't mentioned stupidity, nor have I suggested that you deliberately introduced poor English; you did so because English isn't your first language, and you're somewhat weak in it.  No problem in itself; the trouble is that you kicked up such a fuss when I tried to correct things (and especially with regard to removing copyright violations), and that you've edited the article so intensively that it's going to be a big job to clean it up. --[[User:Mel Etitis|Mel Etitis]]  ([[User talk:Mel Etitis|<font color="green">Μελ Ετητης</font>]]) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
+== Being and Time ==
+I sincerely hope you reconsider your decision to leave [[Being and Time]] for a while.  Your edits are some of the most accurate and well-sourced that I can tell, and the group would really benefit from your knowledge of the material.  I myself usually ignore disputes and stick to the content of articles, often times just waiting the few days it takes for emotionally charged editors to wander off, but I wanted to let you know in any case, that your hardwork is appreciated. Be well, and good luck in the future. - [[User:Sdorrance|Sam]] 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)