User talk:Aggiegal19

Article Selections
All of these are viable options. A few comments on each and you can pick what you want from there.
 * 1) The Little Mermaid: You're right to note that some work needs to be done on the debate over ending section. The other parts need a careful go-over too. Note that some of the contributions are very recent and so you'll have to work with them (the potential homosexual references part -- these kinds of things sometimes come and go depending on who is working on the article. I think it would be instructive to go back through the history of the article to see other examples of ways the article fluctuates, e.g. the centrality of the Disney version and where that got edited out).
 * 2) Afternoon of a Faun (Nijinsky): I think this is the best of the bunch. A lot of content but it doesn't look like a typical Wikipedia article.
 * 3) Christophe Lévêque: This one reads like a resume -- it's definitely a problem. Would require that you look through some of these sources, perhaps, to narrativize what is just listed here, insofar as it is properly sourced and appropriate.
 * 4) Battle of Frankfurt: Yes, needs organization and would need conforming to Battle articles.
 * 5) Summer Palace of Peter the Great: This one is a bit sparser on the content but still needs work. The expansion in 2016 was incomplete and messed with the organization a good bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etherfire (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Aggiegal19, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Little Mermaid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liminal ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_Little_Mermaid check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_Little_Mermaid?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Little Mermaid
Hello Aggiegal19 -

You may recall that you and I had an exchange about the "homosexual subtext" section and sourcing for it in The Little Mermaid article. You mentioned that you had in mind a wider set of revisions, and thus was the "Themes and Interpretations" section born. I watched as it grew and was most impressed - but I never actually thanked you for it (as a forty year college teacher who has frequently included LM in my syllabi) and expressed my admiration for what you did. Starting with Maria Tatar was about the best thing I think you could have done (her Norton The Classic Fairy Tales is one of the best and most useful of such books ever assembled and written), and I had edited in some comments from her about the Disney cartoon that were removed (illegitimately, I would say) by aficionados of that film who knew nothing of the original story. Your use of Borges and White is also very effective. Your section is professionally written, NPOV, and a wonderful addition to the article.

I am guessing from your SN that you are busily preparing for graduation from A&M, but I would like to post this anyway. Treatments of the Disney thing in both the LM adaptations article and in the article on the 1989 animation itself are devoid of criticism and correction, or at least of noting how far that Disney effort has strayed from its source - so far, in fact, that I think the word "perversion" used by several critics is not too harsh. Be that as it may (my POV), I think adding some NPOV criticism to those two articles would take some of the bad taste from my mouth of the substitution in popular culture of a third rate Hollywood romance version for the subtle, beautiful, often spiritual and sometimes terrifying Andersen original. (OT: the millions who know only Disney will never understand the moment depicted in the lovely little stature in Copenhagen harbor - because that moment isn't in the animation). Anyway, sometime soon I'll initiate some of the aforementioned additions to those articles. I'd be delighted if you thought it worth your while to contribute to that effort as well. If not, I'd understand completely - and let me again say what a fine job you have already done.

Regards, Sensei48 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)