User talk:ELApro

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi ELApro. Welcome to English Wikiquote.

Enjoy!-- Poetlister 16:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Baruch Spinoza[edit]

Thank you much for your extensive additions to the Baruch Spinoza page; one of the many profound philosophers we need more quotes from here. I myself love much of his work, though I am quite dissatisfied with some of the translations, as I believe some of them have often confused more than they clarified regarding some of his most important statements. May awareness of his wisdom and that of many others grow, through such efforts as yours. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 14:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Socrates[edit]

Thanks for all the work on the Socrates page today; another page of the great philosophers which there has been too little work on — but there remain so many moderns and ancients to add to, or create pages for, and so few of us here to do it, as of now. I expect that will not always be the case, but progress might be slow for a time yet. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 00:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Gould[edit]

I fear you are adding far too many quotations from these essays. I've tried to keep it down to two or at most three per essay. (Nor is there any need for each individual essay to be represented.) 121a0012 05:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Josiah Gregg[edit]

Please note the discussion at Talk:Josiah Gregg about the quantity and quality of quotations, and feel free to share your thoughts there. ~ Ningauble 19:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Newton[edit]

Much thanks for all the recent additions on the Isaac Newton‎‎ page — I had long intended to do similar expansions of quotes on his interpretive work, but there are always so many things to do, and more urgent matters to attend to, that such ideas and many other things I have long allowed to pass by without my attention. ~ Kalki·· 04:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus or Christianity[edit]

A page that you have been involved in editing, Jesus or Christianity, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Jesus or Christianity. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Commerce of the Prairies[edit]

Thank you for creating this article. It is very long, and while there is no question of copyright as the author has been dead for well over 100 years, I wonder if all the quotes really measure up to our guideline. I see that you have an account on Wikisource. Have you ever considered putting up works in their entirety there?--Collingwood (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This article was originally entered in Dec-2011 under the title "Josiah Gregg." I recently transferred the article to Commerce on the Prairies, since there were no additional quotes entered into the article other than this early U.S. Southwestern travel book. The quotes are probably only relevant to those who have an interest in the history of New Mexico, Mexico, the Southwestern region of the United States, or to those who have an interest in the history of Native Americans or Americans of Hispanic origin, or to those who have an interest in the geography, botony and wildlife of the western United States, or in the quotes of explorers, adventurers or merchants and customs of this region in this time period, or to those who have a general interest in the nonfictional aspects of the "wild west." It might be considered a historical slice of reality from the region and period for the historically curious and adventurous. Today I added sections "Quotes about Commerce..." and "External Links" to provide additional background information about the book and to provide a link accessing the entire 2 volumes online. I will try to do some additional work on the article in an attempt to improve it and to shorten it. It was not an attempt to put the entire 2 volume, 450 page book online. I work hard in the attempt to post quotes, information and links of value and quality, and to contribute to relevant materials for the promotion of the education and entertainment of interested readers in the Wiki-community. I consider myself a volunteer, not a vandal. I am not attempting to lower the standards of the Wikiquote community. I will continue the attempt to improve my choices in the future. ELApro (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the Marcus Aurelius article.[edit]

Hello ELApro, great work on the Marcus Aurelius article! (I hope you continue.) I also noticed that you have contributed to many other articles of erudite philosophers; I admire your work here very much. Best regards, ~ Daniel Tomé (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Campbell[edit]

I appreciate many of your contributions, including the quotes added of Bill Moyers about Joseph Campbell and his ideas to his page — but I see no need to specify that he is quoting or paraphrasing Campbell in every incident where he might be doing so. The context of Moyer's statements are enough to convey that. Blessings ~ Kalki·· 05:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you undid more than just my commentary on paraphrasing and quoting. The point of the commentary was that maybe the quotes and paraphrases belonged under the original section for the book itself, i.e., "The Power of Myth" since most of the quotes were paraphrases and direct quotes from Campbell, and it was the "Introduction" to the book, published as part and parcel of the book itself. I only found one of the quotes that was purely Moyers' own, i.e., that was strictly "about Campbell." This is not an argument about propriety though, I think it is merely a matter of taste, and I have no real argument against your moving the quotes I entered to your newly entered section "Quotes about Campbell," even though most of the quotes were paraphrases and direct quotes from Campbell, either in direct conversation with Moyers, or from Campbell's written work. However, now I will have to redo the other edits that were entered previously, which would not have been necessary had you simply removed the commentary brackets, rather the undoing all of my edits on the quotes that I originally entered. I appreciate your blessings immensely, since I underwent open heart, quadruple bypass surgery a few weeks ago, and need all the help I am lucky enough to receive, having literally returned from the dead.ELApro (talk)

I hadn't noticed any of the link or bolding changes when I reverted — I will go back and edit those back in. I am saddened that you are afflicted, and hope that you recover well. Blessings. ~ Kalki·· 06:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to extend my sympathy and all my best wishes to you at this time, ELApro. I am hoping for your quick recovery. Please take it easy, and get well soon. Most sincerely, DanielTom (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
All the best wishes from me to, I hope you recover well. -- Mdd (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I applaud you all, and the Wikiquote and Wikipedia community in general, whose tremendous work is adding so much to the knowledge and sensibility of a world in great need of counsel and empathy. The effort of making the great historical works of mankind ever more apparent is not noticeably recognized for its true merit and value, but I solute you all, for all that you do, to improve our condition. ELApro (talk)

I know it was a probably a typo, but "solute" is also an interesting variation of salute — and I am just back from short trip and noticed your additions to The Hero with a Thousand Faces (1949) section of the page, and consider them very worthy additions. They show a deep appreciation of many aspects of the lessons of both myth and history which often go neglected, and to which many people remain nearly entirely oblivious. Thanks much. So it goes… ~ Kalki·· 21:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

William Hardy McNeill[edit]

Thanks for creating this article. His take on history is very interesting (almost story-like). It's nice to see you active again, and your always erudite contributions in the recent changes. I trust you're recovering well. Best, DanielTom (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Daniel, recovering as well as could be expected under the circumstances. If you liked the McNeill article, you might also appreciate A History of Mathematics by Florian Cajori. Just as an aside, I wonder why the latest entries are usually placed at the bottom of a user talk or other discussion page instead of at the top. Wouldn't it make more sense to place the latest entries at the top? ELApro (talk)
I am glad to hear it. Thanks for your suggestion — I took a look at the article A History of Mathematics when you created it, a while back, and decided that I should get a copy. Perhaps this December I'll start reading the book, and I might even add a few quotations to the article, as I go along.
Interesting question, "Wouldn't it make more sense to place the latest entries at the top?" Perhaps "sense" is geographical? In diaries, the newest entries are also placed below the older ones, in keeping with the chronology. I think it is just a convention (like, e.g., writing from left to right).
Bertrand Russell addressed this topic in an essay entitled "On the origins of common customs", published in the 22 January 1934 issue of the New York American, which I quote below for your enjoyment—
« I met recently an anthropologist who began to tell me of the customs of savages, which seemed to me very queer. After a while, I remarked on their irrationality, but he replied: 'Why do you take off your hat when you meet a lady?' I had to confess that I had no notion why one does so. It appeared that it is a gesture indicating readiness to lay one's head on the block in submission to the grandeur of the person to whom one is talking. From this we passed on to other customs. One shakes hands to show that one has no concealed weapons in them. Old-fashioned people, when you sneeze, say 'God bless you' but do not know why. The reason is that your soul is supposed to come out of your body when you sneeze, and unless somebody quickly invokes a blessing on you, your soul will be unable to get back and will become a ghost.
...
Another custom which has roots in the very distant past is Christmas. Christmas is much older than Christian religion; it was originally a celebration of the winter solstice, and its purpose was to prevent the sun from going out. It was invariably successful: from that moment the sun's light grew stronger and the period of daylight increased. No wonder so useful a custom has survived. »
("That will do extremely well, child. You have delighted us long enough. Let the other young ladies have time to exhibit.")
Accept my best wishes for your continued recovery. Yours, etc., DanielTom (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:New pages[edit]

Template:New pages is in chronological order -- with newest entries on top and oldest entries on bottom.

Please do not change it to alphabetical order -- as that ruins the process.

Thank you!

-- Cirt (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. You might consider a "the following in choronological order" or "the above is in choronological order" tag to clarify this to readers as well as discourage future attempts by ignorant editors like myself who are too lazy familiarize themselves with the template.

ELApro (talk)

Yes check.svgY Done, please see diff. Thank you for the helpful suggestion, -- Cirt (talk) 16:36, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Some sections moved back into place.[edit]

I greatly appreciate much of the work you have done here lately, with many significant additions to many pages, but I just reverted your moving of two sections on the Isaac Newton page, as having the "disputed" and "misattributed" sections before the "quotes about" section is the standard layout on pages. ~ Kalki·· 00:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I can understand why the "Disputed" and "Misattributed" headers are in the order that they are in under Guide to layout. What I cannot understand is the alarming and distracting background colors that could easily lead a reader to sense that one is now "outside the boundaries" of the authentic article. I'm sure there was a discussion that lead to the standard usage of the background colors associated with the
"Disputed"
and
"Misattributed,"
sections, but it now seems (to at least one reader) a poor decision. Perhaps it was made when there were not many "Quotes about" sections being utilized, so the reader actually was at the end of the authentic article? No malice was intended, since I was unaware of the standard formatting scheme. It was just an ignorant knee-jerk reaction to the awful background colors that seem to punch the reader in the face and which could sadly and easily knock one out of the ring of the article. ELApro (talk) 03:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Background colors for these sections were introduced at the Village Pump in 2010 under Color coordination for misattribution sections. The prevalence of "Quotes about" sections and the order of sections are not different before and since that time. I like the logic of placing all of the quotes from and attributed to the person before the quotes about.

I never got a sense that highlighted sections signal the end of the main article, only an important context within the article. I can appreciate how it might strike you as awfully in-your-face, but that does not seem to be a typical reaction: we have been using this format for three years without any other complaints that I can recall. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Does seem likely that not many people would have an interest in reading "quotes" that have a good chance of not being (authentic) "quotes." I don't know how one would measure such a reaction, however. Almost seems like Misattributed and Disputed quotes should be on a separated page, similar to the "Talk" page, which has more interest for "editors" than "readers." Just rambling... by the way, are the editors that enter comments in other User Talk pages automatically notified when there is a response on that Talk page? Thanks for keeping me in line Kalki & Ningauble, I do appreciate your oversight and help. ELApro (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I had read your message earlier, but was too busy to respond to it then, but was reminded of it just now. There was extensive agreement to use the colors as a means of clearly alerting readers to the more dubious value of statements in such sections. Otherwise very casual readers might well see something on a page and more easily not pay much attention to the information qualifying or disputing the validity of many attributions. ~ Kalki·· 01:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC) [ copied from User talk:Kalki ]
I think one can measure whether many people have an interest in learning about misattributions by the fact that entire books have been devoted to debunking widespread errors of this sort, and the books sell pretty well. You may not be very interested in this information, but plenty of readers are. (Regarding notifications: no, it is not automatic. People often do check for further developments in discussions after commenting, and can use the watchlist feature if they are interested. You can catch someone's attention by linking to their username in your post: they will be automatically notified that they were mentioned.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A History of Mathematics[edit]

Hi ELApro. (How are you?) I started transcribing the book you recommended on Wikisource, and we are now about half way through, though most of the work was not done by me. You may want to take a look. Best, DanielTom (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nice Work!! ELApro (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems[edit]

Please first read Talk:Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, and let us see if we can come to some kind of arrangement before changing things back again. -- Mdd (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Both pages are now protected for one day. -- Mdd (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)