User talk:Leontes

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Jmabel | Talk 03:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Travesties
You did fine; people came in behind you & fixed a few minor style issues. I didn't know Tim Curry was in a later version of the cast; that must have been right after the stage version of Rocky Horror; I caught Travesties early in the run, as I did Rocky Horror; two very memorable productions. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Peeps
Dude, I dig that you use OS X also, but the Peeps jousting has to go. The source is a personal blog of some guy from Fresno. That is not a reliable source. &mdash;ScouterSig 17:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A search on google provides around 27,200 results for a peep ~joust. It's been an activity featured on radio stations and has quite a cultural following.  Its folkplay and the source provides an example of it at work. Feel free to browse the results until you find one that would be reliable for a fairly underground, but notable culturable phenomenon. leontes 17:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it doesn't exist (in fact, it looks pretty fun), but the source must be reliable. And when I googled "Peep jousing" as a phrase, the first 100 sites (of 640) or so all looked to be blogs. &mdash;ScouterSig 01:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Student Newspaper. Washington Post.  and  Photos from a radio station peep joust.  I'm sure the washington post article will do, I'll add it. leontes 01:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Jabberwocky
If I came of as being demanding, I do apologize. But I do think that some of your edits were uncalled for. For example, the Simpsons edit. I fairly certain that many would consider them a part of pop culture. Secondly as for my revert, I would rather have revert back to a previous version and then included your edits, but time constraints wouldn't allow me the luxury. I do hope you understand.--Tempest115 13:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jabberwocky is a very well known poem. I don't think the Simpson comic books, which is an offshoot of the tv show are notable. I know of bars that if you recite jabberwocky, you get a free drink and that too is not notable. There are hundereds of references in popular culture and the paragraph of the section expresses that. I don't see why a simpson's comic should garner a mention but other allusions get passed up.  In this case, I would really recommend slowing down and taking the time to improve the article, taking time rather than making bold changes without consideration.  If you have time constraints, which I can understand, I think it's more important for the health of an article to make only the changes you are sure of, rather than bold strokes and trust the other editors to put back other things that they themselves are sure of.  Anyway, I think you've made it clear what is going on for you... If you'd like to start a references in popular culture of Jabberwocky article, please take the time commitment to do so, otherwise please avoid reverting other editors work, if you don't have the time to really explore it. I appreciate your note and thank you for your personal attention to this matter. leontes 15:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Drum
"I notice you are quick to revert articles without giving them a chance for others to respond."

I edited two hours after your edit; that's not exactly over-quickn. Why exactly do you think that I should wait for others to respond? Do you think that I should leave grammatical errors and unsourced claims for everyone on all articles (in case someone wants to respond to them...), or only here? I don't really understand your criticism, I'm afraid. --Mel Etitis ( Talk ) 22:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
Given that the article has said for months that it is probably a reference to Osric, I don't see how you can say that it is "generally" accepted that it is Polonius!

I think the principal meaning is that he is present, but not at the centre of the action - an "attendant lord" in general. -- Ian Dalziel 16:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the edit with Osric was an error by the editor, presence in wikipedia is not necessairly a reliable source. If one performs a google search, scholar or otherwise, for Prufrock and Polonius, the general consensus is certainly Polonius. I learned such in school and I've heard from Eliot scholars in general that it's a reference to Polonius. Feel free to select from the following references if you feel like one is needed...     for something a little more definitive, evidence is present in the full text of the articles referenced by  leontes 17:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing about Eliot is that *anything* a line makes you think of was probably intended. I'm certainly not about to say that there isn't a veiled reference to Polonius. Or Osric. I don't believe that either is the central intention of the line though - tying it down to a single character would diminish it.
 * I don't think you should approach Eliot as though there is an "answer" to it. -- Ian Dalziel 19:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate what you are saying, however, it is quite clear that he is referring to prince hamlet when he says 'Hamlet', it is very likely that he implying a character in the same play when he introduces a counterpoint to that character later in the stanza, maintaining the allusion. Regardless, the article says "a likely allusion" which, according to scholarship and general understanding of the poem: there seems to be a general consensus.  I don't believe it diminshes the poem as this phrasing is an accurate description of what most poeple believe are Eliot's intentions.   leontes 20:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Cultural references to Ring a Ring O'Roses
Cultural references to Ring a Ring O'Roses, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Cultural references to Ring a Ring O'Roses satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Cultural references to Ring a Ring O'Roses and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Cultural references to Ring a Ring O'Roses during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ring a Ring o'Roses
Hello. Just wanted to say that I hope you don't think I jumped the gun by putting my version of the plague interpretation up. I know it's changed a lot from the original; I tried to keep what would fit. I haven't made any more changes to the article at the moment because I don't know if that would make it harder to revert what I've done. If you think it (or other parts) gets things wrong, let me know. Otherwise I'll start tidying up some wording and links at the weekend. N p holmes (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew81446, sockpuppet
See here, then see here and here. It's a smoking gun, IMHO. Nandesuka (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I admit, it's suspicious, I just think that the approach was already working: topping it all off with a sockpuppetry accusation when we were clearly reaching a consensus was unnecessary. Sockpuppetry has little to do with the points that were raised in the Gordian knot point, which was untarnished by accusation, through just stating simple facts. leontes (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of shibboleths
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of shibboleths. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of shibboleths. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)