User talk:Samael775~enwiki

/Archive 1 - Samael775 16:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wheel of Time

Please add more {{fact}}s if {{unsourced}} is needed. --Gherald 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR, everything on wikipedia is supposed to have a source, and this article cites none. The Jungian archetype stuff looks a lot like original research to me. It needs to be cleaned up. --Samael775 03:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article does cite sources for information that is outside the books, using a number of inline external links. There are currently two {{fact}} flags, and I was unable to find a need for any others. Note that Archetype#Jungian_archetypes does not have citations for the examples presented. Maybe I'm missing something, but I see no reason why this article needs citations in order to document the various characters' fulfillment of archetypes. --Gherald 04:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wp:jimbo makes mistakes

unfortunately, i don't know just how "pov rant"ish this essay was, because you deleted it, but it doesn't seem to be a valid candidate for speedy deletion. also, the deletion policy doesn't say anything about deleting articles in the wikipedia namespace. wikipedia essays are defined as "Essays about Wikipedia and related topics. These are not policy and are primarily opinion pieces.", so i don't see why you can delete an essay becuase it is POV. maybe it did deserve deletion, but i feel you should use the afd process and let the community decide. --Samael775 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Attack pages are speedy deletion candidates, even if the person being attacked is Jimbo Wales. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus

I think that at least some of the Catullus poems are certainly notable enough to have their own pages; Catullus poems have inspired poets for hundreds of years (most notably in the Enlightenment). There are various poems that have their own Wikipedia articles; see Wilfred Owen for links to two. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_poems for more, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_poems for more, etc. I trust I don't need to belabor this point.

User:Silence and I have got it into our heads to create some sort of standardized template for the things so they're more than what most of them presently are, which is translations. I'd rather see them viewed as stubs and works in progress than some violation of some policy that doesn't apply to other poems. Catullus 1 displays an example of what we consider to be a starter template.

I should also add that the reason we are including the Latin text is scansion, an important piece of analysis that is not found on Wikisource. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to having your support in this project. Sophy's Duckling 05:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Catullus

Thank you for the links, though I don't think they are relevent to these articles. NPS doesn't apply here because scansion is valuable analysis that is not acceptable on Wikisource, and scansion demands the original text. Obviously I have not gotten around to scanning all the poetry, but I don't think that means it's okay to delete the articles right now--nobody deletes stubs because they're stubs. NOR dose not apply here because scansion is also not original research, as there's really only one way to scan and everyone who's hit 3rd year Latin knows how to do it. L and P doesn't apply here because Catullus's poems that are really famous (eg c85) are shorter than a great deal of English poetry located on this encyclopedia. Thank you for your time, and please contribute; unfortunately, I will be leaving for a country that censors Wiki so I will not have loads of time to expand them for a while. Sophy's Duckling 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

replied to your response on my own talk page. Hopefully it will be the last of this series of posts and we can go do something like...I don't know, maybe build an encyclopedia for English speakers. :) Sophy's Duckling 18:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:L&P states that articles about lyrics or poems should focus on analysis and cultural impact, not simply on the text, and specifically states that articles consisting only of original text are grounds for speedy deletion or transfer to wikisource. Original translations are most certainly original research, because they are the translator's opinion on what the poem actually says, and are never totally accurate. WP:V states that "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources" and since you and Kenneth Charles's translations have not been published, they cannot be included. My advice is move your translations to wikisource and link Catullus to the wikisource author page. I have nothing against your translations, they look quite good, but wikipedia is not the place for them. Thank you for contributing them to the public domain, and I hope you will continue to contribute in the proper project. --Samael775 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, and as I have pointed out to you, scansion is analysis. The English text needs to be included because English speakers cannot understand what we are talking about unless the English text is there as well. I have pointed out how they do not fit under original research at all. I might point out that they are hardly original, either: every english speaking latin student who has gotten far enough in his studies has translated the poems in a very similar, if not identical, manner. If it is such a problem for you (and don't say "It's not my problem, it's Wikipedia's problem"; I've pointed out to you how it is not, and I'm certain an encyclopedia could benefit from having some of the most brilliant poetry ever written in some form, even if it IS stub form), buy an anthology of Catullus and put up the translations there yourself. Sophy's Duckling 16:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me'n Gaius again

Hi! I just reread my previous response, and it's incredibly rude. My apologies. I think I've devised a solution to our difficulty. Some of Catullus's poems are clearly notable and deserve their own articles (in which I think a small translation is fitting: we can argue that later), but a lot of them aren't notable enough. So meet the page Poetry of Catullus. I think it's notable enough to deserve its own article, and we could include all the analysis and stuff for the other poems that aren't notable enough to have their own pages (e.g., "Poems 2 and poems 3 are cited in one of Dorothy Parker's poems").

As for original research, I still reccomend you find some translations in printed form (or, if you like, the internet ones--I do NOT reccomend, however, Vroma because they are incredibly inaccurate), but be aware that this being wikipedia, editors will change it as they see fit.

BTW, I noticed you put up an article for deletion, but didn't do it correctly. I removed the template and converted it into a redirect b/c it isn't all that notable, but for future reference remember to create a page at AfD b/c otherwise it won't hsow up and people won't vote on it.

I also happened to notice that you haven't made very many contributions to *articles*. Most of your edits have been on wikipedia policy. That's good, but I'd also reccomend that you edit some articles as well. Perhaps you could join the Catullus wikiproject (linked on my talk page)? You have some Latin, and I guarantee you'll run into Catullus if you continue your studies in that, so any information you could bring, along with your textbook for references, would be extremely appreciated.

And I'm sorry if this is not quite coherent. I'm staying up late...very late...and I'm a bit addled. Thanks for your time once again. Sophy's Duckling 06:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me out. I feel that this whole thing has been a bit of a mess. I had intended you see, to place one up, see what happened then carry on with the selection. But Ok, I accept what you are saying. On the other hand then, are you saying that I can post up this stuff at WikiSource without any significant backlash? That was my original idea you see, just to fill it all in for other's benefit. I guess I have a lot of spare time. :D Alakazam138 17:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the recent suggestions of some users, I have become more involved with Wikibooks. Thanks to you for your polite suggestions, even if you did not agree with my article. Uncle G has put forward an elegant suggestion and I am only too happy to use it. Here is a sample of the sorts of things I am writing. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/The_Poetry_of_Gaius_Valerius_Catullus/51 Thanks again for your help, and making a new user feel welcome. Alakazam138 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kathleen Hughes (author)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kathleen Hughes (author), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen Hughes (author). Thank you. Silly rabbit (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Samael775. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Samael775~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

18:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)