User talk:Portia1780/2007 4Q

Welcome to my archive from October 2007-December 2007.

Marie de France edits

Hi Tamara:

Thank you for your comments. I actually did not write these edits. They were written by students in my English Lit survey course; I had the students write additions to the existing wikipedia entry at a different wiki site and then I wanted them to add them to the wikipedia on their own. This particular group worked very enthusiastically on Marie de France (whom I see is one of your research specialties), but for whatever reason was blocked from editing, so I added their work for them (sent out with all its imperfections on its head). I hope I wasn't violating some wiki etiquette by doing this--I haven't been around here long. You are right that the Lais all have separate pages and I feel kind of dumb for not noticing this and pointing it out to the students earlier; I would have rather had them work exclusively on the one we read in class. Oh well--this is the first time I've tried this kind of assignment so it's a learning process for me too. I will share your comments with the students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trixi72 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Tyolet, was selected for DYK!

On October 10, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tyolet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

France WikiProject

Hello, I noticed that you had written articles for the rest of the Lais of Marie de France, which I never really completed due to other things. Thank you very much for writing those! I thought you might be interested in joining the France WikiProject. I'm not a particularly active member of it, but I thought you might like to be aware of it and sign up. Thank you again for writing those articles and filling out the list of lais! --Kyoko 14:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 23 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Melion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 14:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Racine Frontispieces

Thank you for adding the original title page to Phèdre. I looked at the source, where a pdf facsimile of the whole work or just this page could be downloaded. The pdf file of the illustration (the death of Hippolyte) is large and has a lot of very nice detail. I tried converting the file to jpeg, but could not do this without losing much of the detail. Do you have software for converting these marvelous images to jpeg format so that they can be viewed lifesize on clicking? Is it possible to add the whole source pdf files in the external links section (eg this happens on the WP page for Seneca's latin version of the play)? I intend to work on (the sadly non-existent) Iphigénie at some stage. Regards, Mathsci 10:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the new image. --Mathsci 15:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody else started an article on Iphigénie today which I rescued. There was no frontispiece, but the same French source had a set of illustrations for all the plays, so I used that. --Mathsci (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

CFD for Category:Organizations for female writers

Hi, I just weighed in on the CFD -- but in support of merging, not renaming, since Category:Organizations for women writers already exists. I didn't want to tamper with your text, but you really should make the change ASAP, since that is really what your proposal should state. Regards, Cgingold 00:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

My goodness, I had no idea you were a relative newbie -- other than that minor error, there was nothing to give you away. :) That first CFD nom does require one to screw up one's courage, doesn't it? FYI, strictly speaking, the "right" way to word your proposal would be "Merge Category A to Category B" -- but it's clear enough, so not to worry. Also, it's generally best to leave the contents of a nominated category untouched so other editors can see what's there when evaluating how the category is being used. You could self-revert if you want, but again -- not to worry, it was obviously a good-faith edit on your part.

Now that I've seen your user page, the 1780 in your user name begins to make sense (I think). Kentucky, eh? Strangely enough, I'm a native -- but I haven't been back since leaving at age 6 months. And speaking of screwing up one's courage: J'etudiais le Francais, moi-meme, au lycee et a l'universite, il y'a tres, tres longtemps. Hopefully, I didn't mangle that too badly! (& pardon the lack of accents) Regards, Cgingold 04:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Portia1780. I notice that you have been reverting the Female Writers category ... thankyou. I joined Wikipedia in May 2007 - and started editing straightaway, so we are pretty much Wikipeers eh? (I jumped in straight away because I retired in March and decided this was to be my (first anyhow) retirement volunteer project). I too love to add citations and links, but my main interest is writing articles on Australian literature (women mainly! ha!) and film. Anyhow, see you round the traps Sterry2607 04:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Move, don't copy/paste.

Wikipedia uses the GFDL license which requires that all editors be credited. This is done via a page's history log. When you copy/pasted List of female writers to List of women writers you broke the log at [1]. Please ask an administrator to fix it. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-02t14:16z

Thank you. I was unaware of this limitation, and my edit was made in good-faith. In fact, I'm pretty sure mine was a copy/paste-type revert of another editor's copy/paste. I will contact an administrator to see if this can be fixed. Portia1780 16:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been added to the administor's queue at the cut and paste holding pen. Hopefully, this will be resolved in the next few days. Portia1780 16:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Doon

You were right to tone it down, but I was very surprised to see the online source at the article did not mention the Doon de Mayence of the earlier chanson tradition. I saw no reason to suppose that a character named Doon with a horse named Baiart was really some other character; rather I thought the alterations to the backstory was the result of the lai being written much later and under the influence of other lais - just look at what the Italians did to the material. I still suspect this is the case, but I won't add it in without very good evidence to back it up.

I'm not sure if Bayard was ever connected with Doon personally in the chansons, but he did belong to the family - he was given by Doon's son Naimon to his own sons, the most famous of which is Renaud de Montauban. I think the inclusion of Bayard in "Doon" justifies the aricle being listed in Category:Matter of France. I made some other cosmetic changes - changing a bulleted section into prose for instance, but that's mostly minor.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed rename for subcategories of Category:Women by occupation

As you participated in the discussion on Female writers (10th century), I thought you may be interested in the proposal I have made in which that category is subsumed.--Matthew Proctor 06:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Operas and cut and paste

Since both articles will end up being roughly the same size, there's little point to trying to move the history. Just try to make certain to point to the source articles to have the appropriate attributions for the parts not authored by you and you'll be okay. — Coren ^(talk) 04:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response! In my original edit, I said that this was broken out from Psyché and I added a chunk to the discussion page explaining what I did. Hope this is okay! Portia1780 (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, you would usually try to put a link to the original history in the edit summary of when you create the new article, this way it is not affected by further edits and someone looking through the edit history can simply click to follow back to the original. — Coren ^(talk) 04:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I just put the link to the original article, not the history. Thanks for the guidance. Portia1780 (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

about speedy

The requirements for WP:CSD are intended exactly and narrowly. If it doesnt quite fit, or if the article says anything that might possibly be a good faith assertion of notability, use WP:PROD or WP:AFD. DGG (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry. Did I mark something that didn't meet the criteria? I thought I only marked empty articles or ones that were patent gibberish. If so, I didn't mean to offend - just trying to help. Portia1780 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

sorry--there were a number that I was following & I mistakenly thought they were all yours--but tho I agree that Normandy national football team is very dubious, your edit summary was "little to no info, notability" and that should have been a prod-- I've placed the prod. -- For all I know, it might be real and there might be sources--stranger things have happened. Your cleanups and tagging seem generally excellent.

I normally don't do the mark for deletions (I hang out more at the uncategorized section), so I probably just got a little carried away with the speedy deletion... with the spase peeple and all that. I'll be more discerning in the future.Portia1780 (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, I asked WikiProject Football to take a look, for it clearly needs an expert. I do that sort of thing (when I remember) when i recognize that I don't know what's going on, which is rather often. DGG (talk) 05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You're doing wonderful work, on things that I think very important and grossly under-represented in Wikipedia--I've a suggestion--some of these articles aren't represented in the French WP either (none of Marie de France's lais, for example)--perhaps you could enter them there as well? DGG (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the French Wikipedia is a little under populated when it comes to medieval literature. I will certainly consider heading over there and taking a stab. Thanks for the encouragement. Portia1780 (talk) 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

and, since I dont know muyself about the subject,