User talk:Chips Critic

Well done for the Derek Jarman update: long needed! -- Graham :) 03:13, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! --Chips Critic 03:22, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Davies
No problem. Thanks for the shoutout! (And for creating the article to begin with - I find it far harder to start articles than to do even monumental additions to them.) Just happened to have the good chance to meet him a few times and wanted to help give him something at least a little closer to the lavish page he no doubt deserves. :) --Girolamo Savonarola 16:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Fritz Lang
My pleasure, Chips. I added it because it looked like there might be a revert war starting over it, and wanted to put in some ammo for the side of truth. Been watching & enjoying Lang's movies lately-- Dr. Mabuse , the 2 Niebelungen  movies,  Metropolis ,  M , and a few of his American movies. Fantastic stuff! Rizzleboffin 18:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Go talk to John Milton
I'm responsible for the sentences from The Beast in the Jungle and I frankly don't understand your objections. "Matchless" is of course a long-established and useful word in English. John Milton used it in Paradise Lost (4.41), among countless other uses down through the centuries. I'll take my stand with Milton instead of you. As for "beats on," I thought about using the colorless, hackneyed, academic "assaults." But I intentionally chose "beats on" exactly to catch the reader's attention. Sorry you think it's "bathetic," but the words did, well, catch your attention. As for NPOV, many critics who have considered the issue find the final paragraph of the story to be...matchless in its intensity and rhetorical impact. That's one reason the story got into Adler's Great Books set. Casey Abell 16:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "Matchless," of course, has been used numberless times since Milton. The word is no museum piece but rather a perfectly serviceable term found in any dictionary, had you bothered to consult one. Your animus against the word is amusing but completely unpersuasive. Similarly, your dislike of "beats on" is somewhat charming in a crankish way but unconvincing to anybody not already convinced. Your disdain for the U.S. Constitution is also frivolous and will hardly influence a neutral observer. The writers in Adler's Great Books set&mdash;including Milton and the authors of the Constitution&mdash;were far more accomplished in their use of language, on the whole, than you or I can even dream of becoming. Finally, NPOV is not intended to forbid any expression of opinion; otherwise, almost any writing could become impossible. NPOV means that a consensus of opinion among those best qualified to judge should be respected, which the article on The Beast in the Jungle does. And on that subdued note, I'll end my part in this discussion. Casey Abell 02:22, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Ah, thanks. I'm not even going to bother going to DRV/U after the way Deletion_review/Userbox_debates is going. TheJ a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 17:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletion Review/Userboxes. It can be found at WP:DRV/U or WP:DRVU. It's a subset of WP:DRV - deletion review - where speedy deletions that have been done by administrators can be voted on and possibly undone. I would suggest setting aside a fair amount of time if you want to understand DRV/U, since the process is pretty confusing. Later! TheJ  a  bb  e  rw  &#664;  ck 06:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The Beast in the Jungle
Thanks for your comment on the article. I rewrote it a while back and frankly forgot all about it. As for deleting talk page comments, I keep all of my own around because they're always available in the history section, anyway. Hope you don't mind. Again, thanks for the comment. Casey Abell 13:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

W.Somerset Maugham
Given your previous or current interest in Somerset Maugham - can you please add any thoughts you might have at Talk:W. Somerset Maugham so that we can move the article up a notch? V i  r  tual  Steve  09:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

do you feel like revisiting Bisexual erasure again?
While assuming nothing but good faith on the part of the editor who merged the articles, due to the history of as well as lively and vigorous discussion about this article, I have restored the article and substituted instead two merger discussion boxes, one on Bisexual erasure and one on Biphobia.

I look forward to discussing and working on this and other subjects with you in the future. Respectfully CyntWorkStuff (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Alec Guinness
Then expand on it in the article. As it was done, it looks gratuitous, since the reader can simply click through and find that information if they want. If the selection was significant, devote a sentence to it rather than one word. :-) Yworo (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Much better, now it is clear why it is there. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

When the Tigers Broke Free
In undoing a revision you added "(Don't revert crank stuff without logging in, Nedrutland, thank you.)"

The edit was not by me. Ned de Rotelande 08:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Good! Sorry about that. --Chips Critic (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

 * This is kind of silly since you've been here longer than I have and probably don't need any of this stuff, but I see you've never been officially welcomed, so here goes!

Hello, Chips Critic, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place " " on this page and someone will drop by to help. Sincerely,  Λυδ α  cιτγ  06:05, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wachowski reversion
Hi Chips! Why did you remove the expansion on how Lana and Karin met? LamontCranston (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)