User talk:Willsy

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

Welcome to the Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Willsy! Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Willsy, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 04:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Wright[edit]

Hello Willsy, I notice you are the main person behind the article on The Amalgamation Polka. The link to Wright was going to an article about a soccer player, so I started Stephen Wright (writer). I've had a very hard time finding any biographical details about him though. Hopefully, some people better informed than me will add to it soon. --Jleon 15:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Jleon, I think the only thing I could even find was on Random House's website, (http://www.randomhouse.com/author/results.pperl?authorid=33811). Your article is a lot more informative than the one sentence Random House provides, heh. Yeah, I'm hoping that someone will come along and have some more information on him as well. Thanks again! willsy 19:02, 22 February 2006

Why not separate Legacy and Influence sections?[edit]

Willsy, it seems to me that the two sections ought to be divided, for a quite simple reason: Clarity. I had no idea Kate Bush had lifted material from the soliloquy — good get. But as more and more material such as this is added on, in both the Influences on Ulysses and the Legacy of Ulysses, if it's all one grab bag it'll become more and more confusing over time. Precisely in order to allow for future editors to add good material, such as your Kate Bush get, and add it in a systematic and orderly fashion, I for one think that Influence and Legacy ought to be separated. It'll make it clearer now, and allow subcategorization in the future as well.

Just a thought. It's your call.

Incidentally, Leopold does indeed start to snore, but he wakes up, though Molly never quite says when it is that he does. And they in fact do wind up making love, not only confirmed tacitly by the text, but also confirmed by Stuart Gilbert in the exegesis. Cheers, --MILH 05:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

OK[edit]

So I'll make the split. I agree, the Influences on Ulysses will be initially brief, but it'll grow. Cheers, --MILH 15:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Another thing....[edit]

Check out this paragraph In the Legacy of section:

"Joyce is often quoted as saying that one could recreate the city of Dublin, piece by piece, from Ulysses. Many scholars have noted that although this rather bold statement may have been true at or around Joyce's time, so much of the city has changed that this claim is no longer viable. Nevertheless, many of the places and landmarks featured in Ulysses may still be found in Dublin, such as the Martello tower where the novel begins (now a Joyce museum) and Davy Byrne's pub. Indeed, perambulating around the city as Bloom and Dedalus did, one can still get a sense of how the city influenced Joyce's novel."

All of this is true, and useful to know, and therefore definitely worth including. My only qualm is, isn't there a better place for it? It doesn't sound either like Legacy of, much less Influences on. It rates somewhat higher than mere trivia, since in a very real sense one of the principal subjects of the novel is the city of Dublin as a character...Any thoughts?

Cheers, --MILH 15:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion would be greatly appreciated[edit]

Good to make a new friend! And just to show you what kind of an awful person I happen to be, I need to ask you a favor right off the bat: Could you take a look at the article on Pinochet, the Chilean dictator? Some not-very-nice person is going around eliminating information I've been including in order to advance a particular agenda — it's not quite vandalism, but s/he is cutting out information that I've been including under the guise that what I've written are rants. I would appreciate a third party analysis.

Thanks so much.

Oh, and by the by, no I have not read The Third Policeman — any good? Oddly, over the last few years, my novel-reading has tapered off, but my non-fiction reading is astronomical. If books were potato chips, I'd weigh a thousand pounds.

Cheers, --MILH 15:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ulysses talk page[edit]

No worries. While I agree that the conversation isn't especially relevant, it's just considered good etiquette to leave other people's talk page comments alone unless they're blatant vandalism. - dharmabum 08:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)