User talk:A Musing: Difference between revisions
CTSWyneken (talk | contribs) sig |
putting reply in correct chronological order -- "above" refers to comment immediately above |
||
Line 195: | Line 195: | ||
Luther's polemic was very harsh and because he was talented as a writer, memorable. This is a part of his negative side, and we do not have to hide from it -- just be clear that in the case of the Papists and the anabaptist, provoked by similar. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken<sup>(talk)</sup>]]</font> 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
Luther's polemic was very harsh and because he was talented as a writer, memorable. This is a part of his negative side, and we do not have to hide from it -- just be clear that in the case of the Papists and the anabaptist, provoked by similar. --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken<sup>(talk)</sup>]]</font> 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | |||
:: Dear Sam: Thanks for your note! It can be a bit tricky to find a way to talk about such matters. It is always uncomfortable to admit the failings of great people -- especially when you admire them for positive accomplishments which they've made. Luther's doctrine of simul justus et peccator -- saint and sinner at the same time -- helps a bit, as does his own opinion of his works, which he repeadly wished for the most part would be forgotten. For me, it affirms the teaching of salvation by grace that the great Reformer had feet of clay. |
:: Dear Sam: Thanks for your note! It can be a bit tricky to find a way to talk about such matters. It is always uncomfortable to admit the failings of great people -- especially when you admire them for positive accomplishments which they've made. Luther's doctrine of simul justus et peccator -- saint and sinner at the same time -- helps a bit, as does his own opinion of his works, which he repeadly wished for the most part would be forgotten. For me, it affirms the teaching of salvation by grace that the great Reformer had feet of clay. |
||
Line 201: | Line 202: | ||
:: That having been said, I'm fairly satisfied with the form of the intro you have in the sandbox. This is a busy evening, so I may not say much and certainly will not do much at [[Martin Luther]] tonight. I'll comment more fully at a later time. Thanks for joining us at this article. It's good to have another good editor on board! --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken<sup>(talk)</sup>]]</font> 20:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
:: That having been said, I'm fairly satisfied with the form of the intro you have in the sandbox. This is a busy evening, so I may not say much and certainly will not do much at [[Martin Luther]] tonight. I'll comment more fully at a later time. Thanks for joining us at this article. It's good to have another good editor on board! --<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken<sup>(talk)</sup>]]</font> 20:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
⚫ |
Revision as of 21:11, 9 July 2006
Welcome!
Hello, A Musing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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! --Slgrandson 22:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Comments
If you want to add comments for other editors, please use <!--YOUR COMMENT HERE--> so that they do not appear in the article but only in edit mode. Happy editing. savidan(talk) (e@) 02:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - this is useful.Smawnmahlau
Edward VI
Thanks for the edits. :) However, I plan to refactor the headings of that page. Doing so will take a bit of time. Are you done editing for now? --mav 15:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Poetry portal
Hi there. I posted a response to your comment here [1] Thanks. Adambiswanger1 17:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you know anything about formatting? I can't format this portal for my life. Adambiswanger1 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks a million. Two million. That would've taken me years. The only thing now is getting rid of those {{{The Poetry Portal}}} icons at the bottom of the page, and making the top of each box have the appropriate heading--e.g., "Featured article" Adambiswanger1 23:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I added mythology. I have no idea what the deal is with the black lines over the images. Adambiswanger1 00:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Can't quite figure out the footers, either. If you delete the footer box on the main page they go away, but once you get down below the break into two columns, deleting them screws up the columns. Sam 00:36, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- Do you know anything about formatting? I can't format this portal for my life. Adambiswanger1 22:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Hildegarde Flanner
Thanks for the quick help with the news section! However, I've removed the Hildegarde Flanner link as the NYT article seems to have been published in June 4, 1987 ... I know the news section will get out of date, but I don't think we need to start 19 years out of date :) ... I was also thinking that the second section would be just for links to WikiNews ... if Hildegarde Flanner had died recently I would have created an article for her and then made a bullet point in the first section. Correct me if I'm wrong about the date Hildegarde Flanner's death ... I'd never heard of her. Stumps 13:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
- I came across the article just yesterday with a June 8th date at the top - but, you're right! That's the date I accessed, not the date it was published! The volume I have was published by New Directions in the post-war period, and I was trying to figure out what happened to her because I'd come across another volume. In general, she was admired among the Pound/Eliot etc. crowd but I don't think she ever became widely popular. I think of her as a poet of exuberant suburban sprawl and big blue metal cars. An example:
Poem
At least and still at lingering last we can / Console ourselves because this earth is ours,/ Though we could never hurl the hurricane,/ Nor weld a hill, nor soft unlock the showers,/ Nor rivet the diamond under the abyss,/ Nor add the desert up, nor crumble the frost/ Over the flower’s face. Remembering this/ The warm security of pride is lost,/ For we are dull mismasters of a huge event/ And cannot think who tutored us to fail,/ We ruin so quick, and hope is nearly spent;/ But faint at intervals, benign and frail/ A courage whispers, just this side of fate,/ Cling earthward, inward, do not abdicate! /
Poetry timeline
Well spotted!! Yes, I've been slowly making a start at the poetry timeline, putting a few stub pages in place and spending far too much time fooling around with 'esoteric templates'. Anyhow, I think I'm getting close to having the basic structure in place. I want to have a page for each year, and a page per decade, and a page per century. Yes, truly enormous, but like they say about longest journeys beginning with a single step. Please feel free to help out with any of it! Stumps 19:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you can start with Centuries in poetry ... don't worry too myuch about the template stuff, I'm still fiddling with that and will make sure everything is consistent once I have a stable approach. Stumps 04:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Rock and Roll! I'll start populating some of the old stuff. Sam 10:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
FYI—Article improvement drive
In response to your edit summary here, I did some research and discovered it was an accident. --D-Rock (commune with D-Rock) 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Sam 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Bullshit
FIFA have suffered no financial loss and been given no bad press as a result of the incedent so they have right to compensation or libel, the way such a lrage corporation works, it would be catastrophic for their PR to file a lawsuit against a non profit foundation run by anonymous members of the public. The FA status is not to do with former copyright violations anyway, it is to do with the value of the article as a show of what is the best work to offer on wikipedia.
If you see here
Wikipedia:What is a featured article?
and here
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
"If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored."
on that grounds if you uphold your objection, it will be ignored.
Philc TECI 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't they prefer to politely knock the little guys back in line, with a stern letter or threat, with very little show, and just kick the teeth out of the big guy in public if he has the nerves to do the same. Philc TECI 18:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- But isn't sueing anything that ends in "foundation" or "charity" just gunna turn your company into the big corporate bully. But anyway, copyrighted content has been put into the history of hundreds of articles alover the place by new, or unregistered users. So why is it biting this article in the ass, the one I worked on so hard! I'm sorry, but if this turns out to be the reason why it fails, I will just be absoultely gutted. Philc TECI 18:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- The subject of the article should be mentioned in bold face at the first natural place that it occurs in the prose
well, I think pitch accent of Vedic Sanskrit is a fair and accurate description of the article's subject. I realize that the article title is merely Vedic accent, but that is for brevity; the article could equally be located at Vedic pitch accent or pitch accent of Vedic Sanskrit. It just seems silly to resort to a redundant "The Vedic accent is the pitch accent of Vedic Sanskrit" just to have the literal article title in the lead. dab (ᛏ) 14:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- thank you; I hope I'll get round to expanding the article sometime. regarding poetry, I haven't heard the term "inflected accent" before and I am not sure what you mean by it. dab (ᛏ) 15:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Neither am I! I think that should be pitch accent, but the sentences right before it need some attention so it makes sense. Sam 17:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Poetry
- I scoured by 8 or 9 books on poetry that I have, but the information is not about poetry itself, but poets. If I find anything else citable I'll be sure to add it. Adambiswanger1 04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've made a slow start at putting some citations in. I'll do what I can. Those 'fact' tages really help knowing where to focus. Stumps 15:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. The Averroes was dead on. I much prefer substantive footnotes like that, that really add to the article. Sam 16:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought it deserved a mention. I didn't feel it was nonsense. Michaelritchie200 12:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Howdy
I'm sorry...I didn't mean to come across as snide. I didn't elaborate on the Heritage or Biosphere issue when working on the Glacier National Park (US) article. I guess I thought it was wikilinked and that was sufficient. I can expand on the reasons for the designations.--MONGO 01:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Re: Poetry, Turkish poetry, etc.
Hey, thanks for your message (both the one on my talk page and the older one on Meter (poetry)'s talk page).
I have been thinking a bit about, as you say, "dig[ging] deeper" on the Poetry article; the only thing is, it's quite a good article (soon to become featured, hopefully) as is, and so all I can think up for the nonce is copyediting and similar minor changes. I could, of course, try and add more on Turkish and Ottoman Turkish poetry, but I don't think it's really necessary: it would just start bogging the article down with detail (though perhaps I could add a name or a technique or something here and there, provided I can think of any and find an appropriate place for it). By the way, I'm not actually involved in the Turkish Wikipedia (or "Vikipedi", which is this), but rather with Turkish-type articles, mostly Ottoman-related, here on the English Wikipedia.
As for your comments about Ottoman Turkish meter on the "Meter" article, firstly, thanks for the compliments; I'm glad you found it well done. I do want to get the relevant information about Ottoman feet onto the Foot (prosody) article, but because that article is currently in such an (let's be honest) abysmal shape, I'm not sure how to really fit it in there at the moment: it would require some substantial rewriting of the intro bit, for example. Perhaps—once your adventures with the "Poetry" article have panned out—you'd be willing to work together on getting the "Foot" article into shape ... ?
Cheers. —Saposcat 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Shakespeare
Yea hopefully they'll wander on over to the Shakespeare's sonnets page and see the sonnet template. Do you think there's any way to get their attention and divert them to the project? AdamBiswanger1 16:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Poetry Portal July Language Corner
We need something for ... Portal:Poetry/Language Corner archive/July 2006 ... any ideas? Stumps 10:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes Alliterative verse is full enough to be a selected article I suppose. I haven't thought too much about the direction of the 'Language Corner'; I liked the Vedic accent, I think the foreign language aspect was important. I wouldn't worry about looking as though you're 'taking over', it's just great ot see the work getting done. I'm plannign to make Archive pages like Portal:Poetry/Selected article archive whose talk pages would be the perfect place for lists of candidates and discussions, which will make it easier for people to put their suggestions forward and step by step get involved. Stumps 15:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Article Improvement Drive (WP:AID)
An exceptional newcomer
![]() |
The Exceptional Newcomer Award
With only two months of editing under your belt, your work on poetry is an accomplishment attained by few Wikipedians, even those who have been contributing for years. I'm proud to present you this award. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 12:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC) |
Sonnets
Wow that was wild. I thought that the proposed deletion was for all of the sonnets, so I wrote a scathing condemnation of everyone who voted "delete", but then I looked above, and noticed that someone had created articles with no text, and I changed my comment. I'll still vote keep, though. AdamBiswanger1 22:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You helped choose this week's WP:AID winner
- Davodd 05:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Documenting Grace Alone
We have users that are insisting on documentation for the obvious. Would you weigh in on this at talk:Martin Luther? --CTS Wyneken(talk) 21:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sam, they just want to trash Luther, I'm convinced. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 22:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Poetry FA
Congratulations on getting it featured! I was happy to help with it. :) --Monocrat 17:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Mantmoreland
Dear Sam:
See the talk:On the Jews and Their Lies. I'm going to ignore Mantmoreland for awhile and see if he stops the insults of me, other editors, scholars and their works. I just wanted you to know what's going on, since it has been a pleasure to work with you. If he says something of merit, say so. This is the only way I can keep from loosing my cool. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 00:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
CTSWyneken
CTS, please do not make false accusations of "personal attacks." You've done this before with another editor and I objected to that too. These accusations are disruptive to Wikipedia, appear to me to be intended to stifle discussion, and are contrary to WP:POINT. Questioning the credentials of a person who you represent to be a "scholar," but whose very own CV refers to his vocation as a "journalist and editorial consultant," [2]is not a "personal attack" or an "insult" against you. These type of unwarranted accusations have beset the Martin Luther articles to which you are devoted.
As I have said before, please stop taking these edits personally, CTS. I have raised this issue several times in the past, concerning you and other editors, when I was brought in to On the Jews and Their Lies as a mediator and third eye. I noted this tactic then, and was against it then and against it now. I was rewarded with posts such as yours above, as well as vandalism and attacks by an editor who today was blocked for one week.
I used to be a recipient of the same kind of missive that CTSWyneken just placed on this user page. I was appealed to as a "reasonable editor" asked to "be aware" of another "bad editor." This is a pattern that must stop. Focus on the edits, not on the editor, and stop trying to intimidate other editors by making false accusations.--Mantanmoreland 01:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I note you even got an award from one of the warring editors. I think you are right to try to focus on the edits. But, be careful, both of these sides seem to be very good at getting under people's skins and dragging them in. Sam 01:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes I did, Sam. I got a Barnstar from an editor who later -- when I disagreed with him -- subjected to me to a villifcation campaign. That editor, now blocked, is apparently an eminent Luther scholar according to his user page. This is an idea of the kind of emotions involved here. I've been a recipient of anti-Semitic missives by email and I'm not even Jewish, for crying out loud! Anyway, thanks for allowing me to vent and thanks for the use of the crying towel. Feel free to delete my post. Sorry for clogging.--Mantanmoreland 02:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
electors
Ah, now I see: I'd taken electors to mean voters at large (i.e., the people). Perhaps it's obvious from the context and doesn't need to be explicated. Tony 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
This arose because of my microfocus; really, "electors" is quite clear from the wider context of the article. Thanks for clearing this up before it made me look silly.
Pity no one is going to fix it up, but that's WP, I guess. Tony 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Luther and the "Catholics"
Thanks for weighing in on this one. I'm not talking to Mantmoreland, since he constanntly questions my motives, scholars he doesn't like and now editors that put in the bit about Luther's marriage. I'll address that issue on the Luther talk page and others you raise, but I just want you to know why I'm here with this.
I have no problem with a discussion of Luther's rhetoric, although, as you've pointed out, it would take a lot of room to do it justice. In most cases, he gave as good as he got. (The Jews excepted) This was a violent time and the rhetoric does it justice. (this is the time of the Aztecs tearing the living hearts out of sacrificial victims, the inquisitiion, the conquest of the New World, Vlad the Impaler and Sueleman the Great at the gates of Vienna...) The key would be to say just that and tersely. It may be that short notice in the article and a subarticle to handle the whole story.
A word on "Catholic" Using the way Mantmoreland does is anachronistic. THe reformers called themselves catholic, too. Luther's beef was with the Pope and his supporters, called variously "Romanists," "Papists," and other less kind things.
Luther's polemic was very harsh and because he was talented as a writer, memorable. This is a part of his negative side, and we do not have to hide from it -- just be clear that in the case of the Papists and the anabaptist, provoked by similar. --CTS Wyneken(talk) 17:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- CTS, in your ad hominem on me above, you confused me with another of your targets. I had no opinion on Luther's marriage. --Mantanmoreland 17:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Dear Sam: Thanks for your note! It can be a bit tricky to find a way to talk about such matters. It is always uncomfortable to admit the failings of great people -- especially when you admire them for positive accomplishments which they've made. Luther's doctrine of simul justus et peccator -- saint and sinner at the same time -- helps a bit, as does his own opinion of his works, which he repeadly wished for the most part would be forgotten. For me, it affirms the teaching of salvation by grace that the great Reformer had feet of clay.
- Where most of the emotion comes from on my side is when his writings, as horrid as they are, are made to be more than they are and when scholars who say otherwise are belittled, slandered and attacked.
- That having been said, I'm fairly satisfied with the form of the intro you have in the sandbox. This is a busy evening, so I may not say much and certainly will not do much at Martin Luther tonight. I'll comment more fully at a later time. Thanks for joining us at this article. It's good to have another good editor on board! --CTS Wyneken(talk) 20:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)