User talk:Chips Critic

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

Well done for the Derek Jarman update: long needed! -- Graham :) 03:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! --Chips Critic 03:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Davies[edit]

No problem. Thanks for the shoutout! (And for creating the article to begin with - I find it far harder to start articles than to do even monumental additions to them.) Just happened to have the good chance to meet him a few times and wanted to help give him something at least a little closer to the lavish page he no doubt deserves. :) --Girolamo Savonarola 16:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Fritz Lang[edit]

My pleasure, Chips. I added it because it looked like there might be a revert war starting over it, and wanted to put in some ammo for the side of truth. Been watching & enjoying Lang's movies lately-- Dr. Mabuse , the 2 Niebelungen movies, Metropolis , M , and a few of his American movies. Fantastic stuff! Rizzleboffin 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Go talk to John Milton[edit]

I'm responsible for the sentences from The Beast in the Jungle and I frankly don't understand your objections. "Matchless" is of course a long-established and useful word in English. John Milton used it in Paradise Lost (4.41), among countless other uses down through the centuries. I'll take my stand with Milton instead of you. As for "beats on," I thought about using the colorless, hackneyed, academic "assaults." But I intentionally chose "beats on" exactly to catch the reader's attention. Sorry you think it's "bathetic," but the words did, well, catch your attention. As for NPOV, many critics who have considered the issue find the final paragraph of the story to be...matchless in its intensity and rhetorical impact. That's one reason the story got into Adler's Great Books set. Casey Abell 16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

"Matchless," of course, has been used numberless times since Milton. The word is no museum piece but rather a perfectly serviceable term found in any dictionary, had you bothered to consult one. Your animus against the word is amusing but completely unpersuasive. Similarly, your dislike of "beats on" is somewhat charming in a crankish way but unconvincing to anybody not already convinced. Your disdain for the U.S. Constitution is also frivolous and will hardly influence a neutral observer. The writers in Adler's Great Books set—including Milton and the authors of the Constitution—were far more accomplished in their use of language, on the whole, than you or I can even dream of becoming. Finally, NPOV is not intended to forbid any expression of opinion; otherwise, almost any writing could become impossible. NPOV means that a consensus of opinion among those best qualified to judge should be respected, which the article on The Beast in the Jungle does. And on that subdued note, I'll end my part in this discussion. Casey Abell 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Ah, thanks. I'm not even going to bother going to DRV/U after the way Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#Template:User_Communist User Communist is going. TheJabberwʘck 17:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion Review/Userboxes. It can be found at WP:DRV/U or WP:DRVU. It's a subset of WP:DRV - deletion review - where speedy deletions that have been done by administrators can be voted on and possibly undone. I would suggest setting aside a fair amount of time if you want to understand DRV/U, since the process is pretty confusing. Later! TheJabberwʘck 06:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Beast in the Jungle[edit]

Thanks for your comment on the article. I rewrote it a while back and frankly forgot all about it. As for deleting talk page comments, I keep all of my own around because they're always available in the history section, anyway. Hope you don't mind. Again, thanks for the comment. Casey Abell 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

W.Somerset Maugham[edit]

Given your previous or current interest in Somerset Maugham - can you please add any thoughts you might have at Talk:W. Somerset Maugham#What next? Peer Review? so that we can move the article up a notch? VirtualSteve 09:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

do you feel like revisiting Bisexual erasure again?[edit]

While assuming nothing but good faith on the part of the editor who merged the articles, due to the history of as well as lively and vigorous discussion about this article, I have restored the article and substituted instead two merger discussion boxes, one on Bisexual erasure and one on Biphobia.

I look forward to discussing and working on this and other subjects with you in the future. Respectfully CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Alec Guinness[edit]

Then expand on it in the article. As it was done, it looks gratuitous, since the reader can simply click through and find that information if they want. If the selection was significant, devote a sentence to it rather than one word. :-) Yworo (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Much better, now it is clear why it is there. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

When the Tigers Broke Free[edit]

In undoing a revision you added "(Don't revert crank stuff without logging in, Nedrutland, thank you.)"

The edit was not by me. Ned de Rotelande 08:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Good! Sorry about that. --Chips Critic (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome[edit]

This is kind of silly since you've been here longer than I have and probably don't need any of this stuff, but I see you've never been officially welcomed, so here goes!

Hello, Chips Critic, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages 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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on this page and someone will drop by to help. Sincerely, Λυδαcιτγ 06:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Chips Critic. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Chips Critic. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)