User talk:Mtevfrog

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]

Yes I agree — though it's disconcerting way of editing, and one that makes it difficult for other editors to get a look in. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiarostami

Dear Mtevfrog, I made a draft of the article here:User:Draft-Abbas Kiarostami (the version after some edits by you and Elitis). I think it is a good idea that we work on the article there and when it got completed we can replace it with the original version. We can also compare two versions at the end and by this we can exploit the works of every one who helped. It is very kind of you if you could help there. I also asked a film student who is also native speaker and some others to help. Thanks and take care. Sangak 10:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me. Thanks. Sangak 12:23, 6 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]

I second that. It was obvious in a few seconds that your approach, and the quality of your edits was of the first order. As you see from the comments on the Philosophy talk page, it is not Lucas I blame. It is the inability of the system here to deal quickly and effectively with people like him. Dbuckner 07:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you should stop editing either, you contribute in a thoughful way to the editing. And you are especially knowledgeable on the translation issue. -- Lucas (Talk) 07:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks slightly for your comment on my talk page, I understand to some extent what you attempt to say, but will not get into the minutia of it here as it seems your mind is made up. -- Lucas (Talk) 07:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have changed your mind again. In any case welcome back. See the issue on Being and Time talk page: "Do we need to highlight Heidegger's neologistic language early in the article?" I also have made a section there on "peculiar jargon".

As to making a spelling mistake leaving out a 'c' in "acclimatize", well, I am human and usually rely on spell checker programs. The other issues you raise with it do not hold water. It is true to say that "during the course of writing B&T Heidegger found that he needed to use certain neologism". It is not bad English to say something is "sufficient to the task" and "Heideggerean" is not badly spelt. Now, unless you want me to just believe things you say because you claim some kind of oracular power, please do not take this as any reflection upon my opinion of your editing. -- Lucas (Talk) 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should consider cooling off, and sticking to the content of the articles you're working on. Feeding the animals is exhausting, exacerbates the tension, and only distracts more from the real issue at hand. - Sam 18:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Kiarostami

You seem to beleive I am doing the opposite from helping him? How think removing copywright and bias is bad? Answer me please Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem mate. I honestly beleived I have helped it a lot a]I've given it structure b] I've removed most of the gushing comments c] I have attempted to counteract bias by providing equal criticism he has received to provide a neutral discussion using professional sources d] I have removed direct copywright. I agree its not perfect - its gonna need a lot of work still. I think it reads ok but it now flows. It really is not as bad now as is being portrayed. You have my blessing to improve it but please repsect my work this is all I ask for. All the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe reason I appeared to work so frantically on the article was because I was in fear that the copywright would be deleted by you or Mel and felt it would be a shame if the info was totally removed when it could be restructured and fit in the with the article. SO I began reorganizing it quickly to remove the direct copywright which is serious and to rid of those ridiculously overly pov comments - I am aware there are a few typos and some awkward phrasing here and there but this is really on quite minor now and is certainly not worse than before!! Feel free to correct those typos . Saludos amigo! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hi. I have just read it and made a few more minor improvements- hey all you removed is exactly what I saw as the faults but didn't get round to it good stuff. - the reception section is now really neutral- in fact criticism is covered slightly more than praise but tone needs addressing - I have placed the tone tag in that section. Intro is better too, I'm sure you'll agree its looking a lot better than several days ago? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Given that there are many many!! sites many of them professional sources there should be a wealth of other info that can be gradually added as I feel the article could be a bit more in depth. but as the copywright and bias has been addressed I see no urgency to frantically edit as before, so I'll let you continue the good work. I would suggest that if any more info is found that it is put in the talk pages for the time being where it can be discussed how it can be intergrated into the article with direct copywright and pov!! I beleive San has already started doing this-nice to see. All the best. El Criminal Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Derrida

The edit is written in a pretty jargony tone, and suffers appreciably from it, but it's sensible, and I do think it's probably revisable. At least revisable enough to be worth keeping around. Maybe a section cleanup tag? Phil Sandifer 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]