User talk:Mddietz

The Caveat Writer
Whom was the one who was rude to me on the Dover Beach page? Scar ian Talk  19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. He won't sign his postings. He seems to think that wikipedia is a blog. By his estimate I am apparently a Nazi and right-winger because I keep deleting his additions to the Dover Beach page and asking him to provide entries that are up to the wikipedia standards. A bit frustrating, frankly. Mddietz 19:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Watch out for the 3RR rule, but if you can class his edits as vandalism (Specifically it must be vandalism) you won't get into trouble over it. If you know that you're not a Nazi and a ring winger (I certainly hope not) then don't worry about what he says. I recommend that you just walk away from Wikipedia from a little while or at least check out a different article. There is obviously no point in arguing with someone like that. Btw, I found his I.P. address and duly warned him about being polite to other user's and Alf's comment on the Dover Beach discussion page is aimed at him being rude to me. Just ignore him, he will disappear once he becomes bored. He can only damage the article so much before being blocked. If you need any help, don't hesitate to message me. Scar ian  Talk  20:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not worried about it. As you say, I know I'm not a nazi or a right winger (or a left-winger for that matter -- I like to think of myself as very centrist).  In fact, I think I made matters worse by simply not getting mad at him. I figure I can wait him out.  And some of his ramblings have been amusing. What is the 3RR Rule? Mddietz 20:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Three Revert Rule' is when two editor's are in a conflict over material inside an article. For example, one editor wants the analysis in 'Dover Beach' to be included but the other doesn't. They jostle over putting it in and the other taking it out. If one person were to revert the others edit's 3 times (As long as it isn't vandalism), they become eligible to get blocked under the 3RR rule. The rule prevents edit warring and just basic silliness. The block is designed to make the user's involved calm down and it is usually only for a few hours (Depending on how severe it was).
 * It's a shame that you're a centrist... is there any way I can tempt you over to the light? Scar ian  Talk  20:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly part of the reason I am centrist is because I find today's liberals and conservatives are essentially both failed liberals. In essence I think I'm a bit of an old school liberal.  Good to know about the 3RR rule.  I'll watch out for that.  Thanks, Mark Mddietz 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Feedback
(Copy of my posting on the talk page of the Dover Beach article)
 * I sought (from the English lecturers at the very college Arnold himself was a Fellow of) advice about whether the sources chosen represented the corpus of thought or not. Whilst the work of Profs Tinker and Lowry are now considered somewhat "elderly", they are still respected and accepted. Allott is the most respected work, and Honan's being considered an essential supplement. I also asked if there were any works that were omitted for a novice to the subject and it was thought not, the current sources would be comprehensive enough for any 'new reader'. I am still awaiting a response from another lecturer, but doubt it will vary from the first opinion. Thanks for the work that has been put into this article.--Alf melmac 12:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Alf, Thank you very much!! You cannot imagine how pleased this makes me. I'm doing a little dance here... Mddietz 14:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, I'll let you know when I get the second person's view.--Alf melmac 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Okay, mate, I archived quite a lot of stuff. Could you possibly take a 'butcher's' to make sure I didn't remove anything I shouldn't have? Scar ian Talk  22:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (I couldn't be bothered to make a new heading, I really need a glass of water because my throat is dry - so I shall be pretty brief) Anyway! If you ever need any help with anything feel free to ask and I also left a comment at Dover Beach. Hooah. Scar ian  Talk  18:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Scarian, thanks. I have to get back to my dissertation which I have been stealing time from to work on this.  When I get that done I think I will come back here and pick up where I left off.  I will keep your offer in mind.  You know much more about this wikipedia thing and you could continue to help keep me out of trouble. Thanks, again. Mddietz 19:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course! School work is always more important than anything. But I found something incredibly ironic (But you're not allowed to look at it until you finished your work), remember when the anon called you a 'Nazi'? Look at this Godwin's Law. Anyway, good luck with your work and make sure you finish it before going on Wikipedia :-) Scar ian  Talk  09:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Arnold - Sage
The Sage writing article is one I've just started, and its quite incomplete now because I only have access to the one major source (Landow) which is online. The term has become quite prevalent in Victorian studies over the past few decades (it wasn't used by the Victorians themselves) and there are numerous major works dedicated to the concept (Holloway's The Victorian Sage being most notable). If you feel the term should have a less prominent place in the Arnold article, go ahead, but the term "sage writer" is probably the most common designation of Arnold I've come across, and shouldn't be removed. The Sage writing article is a bit misleading now because it leans too heavily on Landow, but within a couple weeks I'll be able to revise it with additional sources and that should make the designation more clear. Dozenthey (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll have to accept that today it may be common to see "sage writer" applied to Arnold; after all we do live in an age of pithy neologisms. I'm somewhat well-read on Arnold and I do not recall seeing the phrase used with Arnold before (although, the piece on "The Victorian Sage" sounds familiar; clearly however, any article or book dealing explicitly with this issue would, of course, not amount to a revision in how Arnold is perceived in general,-- one would need to find articles and books that use the term outside of the current argument,-- something on the order of Honan's biography,-- and I don't recall seeing it there).  Frankly, I have to admit I am not as current in my reading as I should be.  But I think that this phrase, “sage writer,” may have some subtleties that deserve a little more thought.  I apologize if you have already gone through this, or if these concerns are inherent in the literature on "sage writers."  The term is new to me, and seems to level some complex implications that make its blithe use as a simple sobriquet a matter that should evoke more than passing concern.  (By the way, I really have to say that although I am previously unfamiliar with this term, it appears to me that your article so far does an excellent job of communicating the concept.  I am anxious to see what you add to it.  While I cannot help you with it, you will certainly have me cheering from the sidelines as you develop it.)


 * I'm going to ask you a question that may be a bit unfair, if so I apologize. Does it bother you a little that the word "sage" is being used here ironically?  The term, sage writer, seems to be saying, "this is someone who wishes to be seen as a sage, but whose actual performance may fall somewhat short of that mark."  Which is a very valid statement to make about these writers, indeed, Carlyle very much wanted to be seen as a sage and to have his sayings accepted at face value.  The term itself, "sage writer," read alone, would seem to say “this is a writer who is a sage" -- all subtlety and irony lost.  As a fully expressed concept, the irony in the term is apparent and not particularly concernful.  When it is used as a short phrase, its nuance deserts it entirely.  (Alternatively, a more appropriate term might be “desire-to-be-a-sage writer,” but that is hardly workable and I’m afraid makes it obvious that sage writing may not quite be a true genre, depending, of course, upon how one defines a genre.)


 * Another problem I have is that, while the term "sage" certainly resonates well when applied to Ruskin, Carlyle and Thoreau, for Arnold it is not (as a term) nearly so well suited. He would have laughed heartily at (and with) anyone who called him a sage.  He delighted at being called the "Apostle of Culture" thinking it a terribly good joke.  Arnold had a self-deprecating, humorous side; he would, I suspect, have accepted the criticism so far as it goes (the term is, is it not?, a very critical one; it is hardly neutral).  But because he would have laughed so heartily at it, the rather serious note of the "sage-like" figure, as a satire, fails.  It just does not work for Arnold as well as it does for the others.  Those who have not read deep in Arnold will often misunderstand his tendency to irony and satire.  At the same time what you have offered in your article on sage writing as "interpretation, attack upon the audience (or those in authority), warning, and visionary promise" is certainly true to Arnold,--it's just that the vision comes with a smile and a wink (not so for Ruskin or Thoreau, but to some extent true for Carlyle.)


 * Do you see why this is a little concernful to me?


 * For now, can we simply agree to remove the phrase from the first sentence of the Matthew Arnold article (and I would recommend the same for the Thoreau and Ruskin articles or any other articles where it is standing too plainly on its own)? Not because it is inapt at all, but because it is not, I think, able to stand upon its own.  Then if you would like to add more in the Arnold article showing how this represents a current critical reception I would say, please, I think it is needed.  But because the phrase cannot, I believe, stand on its own, and because it is new to me, I do not see how I can make any other correction myself beyond recommending its current removal.  I would urge you to add something more complete to the Arnold article.  Indeed, I would welcome it. Thanks


 * By the way you have moved the conversation to my User Page. I am not sure why; I hope it is okay that I answer you from my User Page. Mddietz (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, one more thing, Arnold thought the "elegant Jeremiah" phrase was just downright odd, mainly because he did not care for Jeremiah and because the comparison seemed to him inapt. Had he been called an "elegant Isaiah," I am willing to bet he would have swooned with delight! Mddietz (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll grant that the link might be misleading at the moment, since the sage writing article is incomplete, so I won't be offended if its removed. I think, however, that when I add to the article, the link will become justifiable. The works on sage writing such as Holloway and Landow, which prominently feature Arnold, are not obscure pieces of scholarship or "pithy neologisms"; Holloway is regularly including in PhD reading lists, for example, and both writers are distinguished scholars. Furthermore, the Blackwell Companion to Victorian Literature and Culture, a major publication intended not as original research but as a guide to the consensus view of Victorian studies, devotes a full chapter to sage writing and includes a discussion of Arnold therein. These amount to a better sense of how Arnold "is perceived in general" than his biography does, and you have no valid reason, unless you cite published arguments to that effect, to consider these general works of less merit than the Arnold-specific scholarship. (Another reason the term might not appear in the biography is that it it has only come into use in the last half of the 20th century, although its not any less well established for that). Furthermore, contemporary Arnold scholars cannot be unaware of the term, so if they disagree with it you ought to be able to find published arguments, which could be used to counterbalance the term, but until then I think the references I have provided/will provide warrant the claim to consensus view.
 * This is not to be combative... I believe that when the sage article is filled out, it will be less objectionable to you anyway. Also, the scholarship, I believe, does take account of Arnold's irony . (Landow specifically mentions Arnold's dissatisfaction with "Elegant Jeremiah"- I'll try to work in a mention, but still that is how Arnold was commonly perceived).
 * So, remove the link for now if you will; in early June I'll be expanding the sage article based on additional sources, and I'll let you know when its completed, in case you wish to comment or contribute, and we can reassess how the term should be used in the Arnold article based on the scholarship. Lastly; I'm fairly new to wikipedia, so I'm still learning the protocol for talking/collaborating with other editors, thats the only reason I moved the conversation to your page. Dozenthey (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I have been out here editing for only a little while myself. And I hope I am not coming across as argumentative; I really don't mean to be.  Frankly, I kind of feel like we may be talking past each other on a few issues.  I thought I had made it clear that I think the term is quite applicable to Arnold (my discussion was meant to demonstrate that its application to Arnold may deserve a somewhat more nuanced presentation, not to suggest that it was not applicable; I think you read me as arguing in an either/or mode, something I try to avoid doing).  And I also thought I had not questioned at all the scholarly reputations of Landow and Holloway.  As for my phrase "pithy neologism," that was meant as a joke.  I am afraid it may have only confused things.  My apologies.  (The term is after all something of a "pithy neologism," although at twenty to thirty years old, its clearly not all that new, and, to be honest, neologism does imply a certain speciousness; I had thought my statements that I regarded the term as applicable to Arnold, et al, countered the sense of speciousness; clearly, I was mistaken.  As for pithy, perhaps, we might agree on that.)
 * Let me see if I can state my only concern more clearly: I am concerned that the use of the term "sage writer" in the Arnold, Ruskin, or Thoreau articles might be the source of confusion if the term appears without any explanation (in the article) of what the term means. I think this is true no matter how well written the supporting "sage writing" article is.  Not everyone will follow the link, and the possibility that a general reader will misunderstand the term is, to my mind, quite high.  The term is inherently ironic and the irony in the term, I would argue, is not apparent out of context.  While the term may have gained currency in Victorian Studies, I do not believe it has done so amongst general readers, i.e. the primary audience for wikipedia.
 * That is my only concern, and I probably went to too great a length to express it. (I do tend to go on and on, sorry about that.) I would really love to see it in the Arnold article in the future, and will gladly accept your offer to explore with you how it can be included so that there is less possibility for misunderstanding. (I, frankly, badly want to get back to the Arnold article which badly needs to be cleaned up, but just don't have the time as I have to get some real academic writing done -- you know publish or perish.) Mddietz (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand better now. We can discuss it again once I've gotten a better feel for what "sage" actually entails, and figure out how to explain it in the Arnold article. BTW, I might try to get an article for Literature and Dogma going later on this summer, if you'd be interested and available to collaborate. Good luck on your work. Dozenthey (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be very interested in working with you on an article on "Literature and Dogma" -- one of Arnold's most intriguing works. Like most of his religious writing it has received such mixed reviews, and it took a lot of chutzpah on Arnold's part to write it in the first place.  But that to me is part of the fun of Arnold.  Mddietz (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good poetry article
I can point to "The Raven" as a good example of an article about a poem. This article has been a featured article. Robert K S (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you planning on addressing my concerns re: Dover Beach? I'm puzzled by your reversion and its lack of follow-up. Reading your talk reply.  Didn't see it before.  Robert K S (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep up the frolics in the public square
Greetings Mddietz, Just a couple (3 or 4?) of quick words to say that a) I'm learning more from your comments on the discussion page than from the article itself, and b) there seems to be some useful-looking stuff at the Pragmatism article. I'm unfortunately unable to judge how much of it is correct or relevant. I'm really way out of my depth here and only came to the Dewey article to find out a little more than the very little I actually knew. It was however patently obvious, even to me, that the article is in serious need of meatball surgery, and I'm pretty good at that. But please let me know when I chop off the wrong limb or whip out the wrong organ and/or slice off my own thumb... Regards, --Technopat (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Technopat, I think you're doing a great job. The meatball surgery is just what the doctor ordered.  I'm anxious to see what you do with the education section which starts off with some very odd stuff about culture (this is part of the post-modern critique of Dewey).  I'll help as much as I can, but I just don't have the time right now.  I can try to drop in a few general squibs like the criticism paragraph and then you can decide what to do with them.  I know I've left out a lot in the criticism category, but what is there does at least hit a number of the high points.  It does not, however, deal with the criticisms of his pragmatism itself. Mddietz (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope my ham-fistedness doesn't upset you too much. Thought that by setting up specific articles on each, they might get some attention from people with an interest in developing them further. It's also a way of diversifying & ensuring that any vandalism or outright nonsense gets spotted and dealt with earlier. As for the the Sopwith, etc. it was always a favourite of mine from when I built my first scale model, but the rest is just the normal evolution from what my primary school teachers always complained of: "If only your son could make an effort to concentrate on one thing at a time..." :) Regards, --Technopat (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy of education
Greetings Mddietz, Given your lack of time and my need for pointers, maybe I could just ask you to work out a short summary for the Dewey subsection at Philosophy of education. The article just fobs him off without even a line, although there are indirect references further on under the Paulo Freire subsection. There's no hurry 'cos this is obviously going to be a long-term project, but at least it'll be work-in-progress. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Humanism
Greetings Mddietz, yer/Dewey's "Humanism ... servants of human good" would be great for the plitical (sic)* activism section. Just needs to be referenced 'cos my longterm idea is to get the article so airtight - as in tamper-proof - that [neutral] Administrators without any particular interest in Dewey will protect it & guard it as their own.


 * with your permission, I'd like to use this term to describe the pitiful state of modern politics and all the -isms that surround us :) Regards, --Technopat (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is the quotation in full with full citation: "What Humanism means to me is an expansion, not a contraction, of human life, an expansion in which nature and the science of nature are made the willing servants of human good." Italics in the original.  "What Humanism Means to Me," first published in Thinker 2 (June 1930): 9-12, as part of a series.  Dewey: Page lw.5.266 [The Collected Works of John Dewey, 1882-1953, The Electronic Edition]


 * The following comes from the John Dewey Chronolgy (http://www.siu.edu/~deweyctr/CHRONO.pdf)
 * 1934.04.08 Addresses First Humanist Society of New York, Steinway Hall, "Emotion and Religion"; member of advisory board [Smith, "Dewey on the Humanist Movement"; New York Times, 9 April 1934, 13; 1934.03.20 (07710)]
 * 1936.03.12 Elected honorary member of the Humanist Press Association [1936.03.20 (07802)]
 * 1940.09 "Member of advisory board of Dr. Potter's First Humanist Society" [1940.09.12 (13676)]
 * 1950.09.11 Pays membership in Humanist Club at Columbia University, "first dues-paying member" [Pique 2 (Summer 1990): 2; Smith, "Dewey on the Humanist Movement"]


 * Maybe a simple sentence in the political activism section along the lines: "Dewey participated in a variety of humanist activities from the thirties into the fifties." Then follow this with the call out of the above quotation. What do you think? (Use the chronology as a citation for his humanist activities -- by the way you may find a number of good citations in this chronology; it is easy to search and a highly respected piece of Dewey scholarship.)   Mddietz (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link - what a wonderful source! Am working on your proposal above. Regards, --83.36.33.47 (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC) (Sorry - got timed out and didn't hit the preview button! --Technopat (talk) 17:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Thanks!
Thanks for the moral support!--Technopat (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sage
As you gather, my opinion of Eleuther's behaviour is not high, and I think the unearned pose of superiority he adopted when challenged (and continues to adopt) was deeply counter-productive, as are his frankly childish edit summaries ("restore useful information about garbage"). I am a specialist on Ruskin and Carlyle, but not on Arnold, though I have written a little on him. I'm not convinced that the "sage" concept applies properly to him, but it is still important to retain links to relevant pages, since what matters is that he has been included in this category by significant scholars - including Holloway, the originator of the concept. It is for the benefit of readers, who can read the article and decide the relevance of it for themselves. I do think that the sage concept should, in Ruskin's case, have centre stage, since he is the archetypal "Victorian sage". Paul B (talk) 08:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Arnold Family tree
I've done some modifications in my family tree sandbox (scroll down). If you can get the dates, feel free to edit (or put them on my talk page). I'm not totally happy with the key (but then I'm not totally happy with the chart template I'm using [accessibility is a major problem]).--Erp (talk) 16:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad you enjoyed the updating. I've moved it across to the Thomas Arnold article.  If it is to be used in multiple articles, we should use a template so that an update in it will update in all relevant articles.  Not sure yet how to do that or if there is interest.--Erp (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Modified to use template. If you put  in the article, the family tree will show up.  Go to Template:Arnold family to edit.--Erp (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Arnold
Arnold is a very important person and a very important early critic, so I felt that it was warranted. His "six points of light" idea helped put together our modern British canon of literature. Anyway, feel free to contact me whenever if you need any help working on pages. I have quite a bit on my list now, but I will always drop a hand where I can for Arnold. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This may help. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha, perhaps. I tend to focus on the canon, myself, and I find Arnold as an important person when looking at tradition. I am biased by Eliot and Eliot's own understanding of Arnold, however. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Palmer
Re Samuel Palmer As the intro to Samuel refers to him as both a painter and prolific writer I felt it would be useful to example the kind of writing he did apart from his prolific letters.A key works by artists would indeed be a great page to add to Wiki but inevitably somewhat subjective.Mine for Samuel would be In a Shoreham Garden c1829.Rgds Brian Ichthys58 (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mark,Samuel's was a prolific 'letter writer' from my understanding/reading.But he did also author a few things as I noted.It is useful to know I think when painters also have useful writings on their art etc.Provided they do not add extensive paragraphs to th Wiki page.Enjoy the bio of this interesing artist.Ichthys58 (talk)

WP:ANEW
Hi, could you please try again? Click the "add new report" link at the top of the page and fill in as many of the details as you can. The important parts are the editor you're reporting and the page on which the 3RR violation took place. The rest can be woked out by the admin who deals with the report. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   22:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Hugh Clough
Mmm, yes, I do rather agree with you. Not sure I know what to do about it, though - adding suitable refs is a tough job. But perhaps the xref to the excellent page on medical ethics actually says most of what one might wish to refer to on that topic at least. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit
Of course you are absolutely right, Mark, and I don't know how it could have happened, as it is easy enough to identify the passage as a quotation, and as there are dashes elsewhere in it. Working too fast, I guess. Thanks very much for catching it!--93.220.118.90 (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC). Sorry, I forgot to log in before I wrote this response. Here's my sig.:--Remotelysensed (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dover Beach article
The point is that something that is clearly an opinion is presented as a fact. Regardless of how many critics agree, it is still an opinion. (I personally don't find the poem difficult to understand in the least.) Mike Hayes (talk) 07:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm berating those people who don't like your "academic" style, not you. Mike Hayes (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The finer details you discuss are certainly important to a critic who is doing a deep analysis of the poem, but they are not (in my opinion) necessary for an understanding of the poem. The poet tells us what he is feeling himself and that Sophocles had a similar experience. That is sufficient for me without knowing what it was exactly that Sophocles heard. Sure it would be nice to be able to read a direct quote from Sophocles in order to know precisely what he is talking about, and this is the sort of research I look for from scholars, but it is not a requirement. Who he is addressing doesn't matter to me very much because it is his own feelings he is talking about. The final lines are simple in their message. If they are also referring to ancient Greeks doing battle in the dark, that is interesting, but ultimately unimportant. Its a poem after all, not a philosophical treatise. Mike Hayes (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to, "makes up its own meaning no matter how implausible, ahistorical, and incongruous that meaning may be." Nowhere have I attempted to explain the meaning of the poem. I simply said that, to me personally, the meaning is clear and that the historical details are interesting ("academic" if you will) but not necessary for an understanding of the poem. If anything is likely to make the poem "incongruous", it is dwelling on the details we cannot know for sure, instead of enjoying the poetry for those things that are obvious to all. In other words, I am not claiming to know more than you do, but that I am looking at it in a different light. Mike Hayes (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)