User talk:SummerWithMorons/Archive01

Please curse here.

The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia
A tag has been placed on The Sexual Life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. B1atv 19:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * you're fast :)--SummerWithMorons 19:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Damien Hirsch
A tag has been placed on Damien Hirsch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthropology
Good work on your recent edits to anthropology of religion; I was passing through that article (as well as other articles) a month or so ago to tag them for WikiProject Anthropology, and I found it to be in a somewhat depressing state, so it's great that somebody's taking an interest and improving it. I don't know if you've considered joining WikiProject Anthropology? We collaborate on anthropology articles, and generally flag up issues of concern for people interested in the coverage of anthropology on Wikipedia. Our current collaboration of the month is kinship, which in fact includes a reference to Malinowski's Sexual Life of Savages, which I see you've created an article for. Anyway, keep up the good work. Robotforaday (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Kinship
Please check the page numbers you are using - I am referring to the original 1929 edition; I have double checked and the page numbers you are giving are not the same as that edition. Perhaps you are using a later copy? I would prefer to use the Citation templates as I feel they are a lot neater, however, I think it would be worth discussing this on Talk:Kinship to try and create a consensus. Robotforaday (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Variation on a theme
You say this is a "fundamental aspect in art history"; why then are your examples literature based? are there any art examples you could include instead? Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

English 101
What is wrong with this sentence:


 * "The Parts That Were Left Out of the Kennedy Book is a satirical article by Paul Krassner, often considered is most successful prank."

And this one:


 * "Shortly after the death, satirist Paul Krassner published a cartoon illustration, portraying the liberated behavior of the Disney characters, titled The Disneyland Memorial Orgy."

???? IP4240207xx (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, you missed it:


 * Try just this part: "Shortly after the death, satirist Paul Krassner"

IP4240207xx (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

People here in Birmingham say it's fine, maybe because they're on acid. --Sum


 * Alright, I'll try to help you. Is your handle self-descriptive?


 * The first one:


 * "The Parts That Were Left Out of the Kennedy Book is a satirical article by Paul Krassner, often considered is most successful prank."


 * Should be: 'his'


 * The second one:


 * "Shortly after the death, satirist Paul Krassner..."


 * The death of whom or what? The death of the Krassner? Of the ID? Of the sun?


 * "Shortly after the death of Walt Disney, satirist Paul Krassner..."
 * or
 * "Shortly after Walt Disney's death, satirist Paul Krassner..."


 * I'll be in my office grading papers throughout the day. Where is my red pencil? IP4240207xx (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. ''I may agree with a lot of what you edited. But your sources are unreliable and the way you write it looks like NPOV. Sorry'' Legion fi (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to you dear newbie.--Sum (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
FAC has restarted, if you would like to vote, please go here Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA.  Nancy Heise    talk  00:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Rita Levi Montalcini
I'm sure you are aware of the discussion at Talk:The Rhetoric of Drugs. As per the official Wikipedia verifiability policy, namely Verifiability I respectfully request that you (as I assume you speak Italian and has substantial knowledge on the topic) provide a translation of the relevant passages of the source you cited for Rita Levi Montalcini's reaction on Derrida's work. Thank you. --GSchjetne (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor
I have nominated Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  Ja Ga  talk 21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)   Ja Ga  talk  21:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Heya, I've noticed you've been contributing to articles similar to mine, i.e. related to activist/anarchist people. My article on Bruno Masse is threatened of deletion, could you please vote to keep it? You can vote [| here]. In solidarity! Lkeryl (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Bruno Masse
AfD discussions should not be edited after their close. Little Red Riding Hood  talk  18:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

About the article's DRV, I responded to your !vote with a question here.--chaser - t 03:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Clark Nardinelli
A tag has been placed on Clark Nardinelli requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Millbrooky (talk) 07:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Work-leisure dichotomy
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Work-leisure dichotomy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  RGTraynor  20:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Primate at FAC
Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

SI and Debord
Hi there, am not convinced by the 'core ideas' section in the SI article. Debord wasn't the main theorist - Jorn was at least as influencial in the SI, especially ideas of Situgraphy etc. Also Wolman Vaneigm and others at different points. also the spectacle is a later development of situationist theory and not central to the SI at all. I think that section at least needs to look at other ideas/ people or be taken out. its all covered in 'key ideas' anyway... Comments? Paki.tv (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paki.tv, good points. Although I may miss some important source, I've always read of Debord as the main contributor, with Vaneigm right after him with is 1967 book. I'd like if you could add some sources on the prominence of the members. The article currently is almost totally unreferenced, particularly the 'key ideas' section which is also not very clear. Since the article is at an early stage of development, I would say that adding referenced material is what it most needs. Probably deletions won't be helpful at the moment, I would just use maintenance tags. So on the topic on the contributions and prominence of the situationist we can find good sources to add. PS. It probably would be helpful to discuss all this on the article talk.--Sum (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Joan Thirsk
The article starts rene Joan Watkins Thirsk - is her first name Irene? Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes.--Sum (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Art and politics
Hi, I wonder if you are happy with the changes being made to this article by User:NYScholar who has decided to impose MLA style templates on the article despite requests to try and arrive at consensus. I find that his edits are making the article top-heavy and harder to actually find the online references. Would welcome your opinion on the article talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Mortal
Greetings!

Your recent edit to List of metonyms included a link to a disambiguation page. The use of these links is discouraged on Wikipedia as they are unhelpful to readers. In the future, please check your links to make sure they point to an article. Thanks!  twirligig T tothe C 22:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Satire (attacks on)
The introductory paragraph to this section has a simple meaning which you seem to have totally missed.

1. Satire is essentially indirect, and often ironic (see introduction to article as a whole - which HAS references - these do not need to be repeated here).

2. This makes it obscure, so that it usually escapes censorship. (If the cap fits wear it, in other words). This is also treated (and referenced) elsewhere in the article.

3. On the other hand satirists are by no means immune to attack and censorship. (Numerous specific examples given in rest of section).

It is simplistic (and very far from universally true) to state that satire is "against power". Almost anything can be the subject of satire. Nor are the powerful the only people who attack satire (although the attacks of the powerful are obviously much more dangerous).

Nobody is claiming (at least in this paragraph) that satirists censor themselves to avoid criticism (although of course they sometimes have to!) - at least that is not the meaning conveyed here. What we are saying is that satire is essentially veiled - that is what distinguishes satire from plaim abuse!! Again - read the introduction to the article, and try to come to grips with what it actually means, if you can.

--Soundofmusicals (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Official culture
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Official culture, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * little more than a dictionary definition.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RadioFan (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Declaring cite bodies outside of article prose
Regarding your remarks at Mediawiki:Extension talk:Cite#From criticism section: references body in reference sections, if this is still a matter of interest to you please see see Mediawiki:Extension talk:Cite#Cite_body.php modified to allow ref bodies to be declared outside of article prose and 18890. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Aviation regulations
I have nominated Aviation regulations, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Aviation regulations. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  SKATER  Speak. 16:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

megalomaniac paranoia
Well, I'm going to remove George Bush from the list of examples, for reasons that are probably obvious. I have doubts about the other names too, but they are more reasonable. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reagan
Hi, not a good idea to slap tags on featured articles without any discussion or specifics as to why you did so. Start a discussion first, please. Happyme22 (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Citing WP:Ownership is not a personal attack.--Sum (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You reverted "per WP:ownership", what are you hoping to accomplish with this kind of edit summary? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note (for the record, I'm sure you don't need to be told this) that you're on the threshold of violating 3RR -- any further reverting will lead to a report for edit warring. Looie496 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And I've also warned William S. Saturn. Mattnad (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which does not make any sense at this moment. Please note that unless you are able to discuss the tag and give reasons for its implementation, I will continue to revert because the change is not legitimate and is on a high profile article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also you should actually read the WP:ownership article, and you will see that your comment was indeed a personal attack and you should apologize to Happyme22. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Man bites dog trope
I have nominated Man bites dog trope, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Man bites dog trope. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nuberger13 (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Voting System FAR
nominated Voting system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Fei noh a  Talk, My master 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Megalomaniac paranoia
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Megalomaniac paranoia. 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/Megalomaniac paranoia. 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) 01:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Any more comments on this ? Articles for deletion/Megalomaniac paranoia Are you voting keep or delete ? --Penbat (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenia
Please read WP:MEDRS and discuss your edits at Talk:Schizophrenia; uncited anecdote and text which doesn't conform with MEDRS has been removed. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Variation on a theme
Sorry I didn't answer you earlier: I was away. The tags say for themselves. Your text is way off the style and rules of wikipedia. As I see, you are not a novice, so you must know the rules and style of wikipedia texts. If you don't see it, I don't think my advice will be of any help. Xuz (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor and others
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated articles are Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, Variation on a theme. 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 the relevant discussion pages: Articles for deletion/Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor (2 nomination) for Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, Articles for deletion/Variation on a theme for Variation on a theme. 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) 01:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

German art fork
You seem to make a habit of this? Must I really take it to Afd? What a waste of time. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, take it to Afd. Cheers.--Sum (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Your contributed article, German art just before the Third Reich
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, German art just before the Third Reich. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - [[German art]]. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at [[German art]] - you might like to discuss new information at Talk:[[German art|the article's talk page]].

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  Litho  derm  16:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Speed deletion has been dropped. Thanks for your contribution.--Sum (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you going to address my complaints, or are you going to make snide comments? I admit that the speedy deletion was premature- for that I apologize. It is always best, however, to discuss theses forks on the talk page of the main article before performing the move. I have made a proposal on the talk page of the article. Please comment there. Thanks,  Litho  derm  23:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello SummerWithMorons! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Francesco Poli -

Done.--Sum (talk) 10:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Confit Byaldi/Ratatouille Video

 * Hi, Summer...
 * Thought I would say thank you for posting my Ratatouille video in the "Confit Byaldi" page. :) That's very flattering that you would do that.
 * Thanks! TabascoMan77 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

On your recent edits to Writing
I have reverted many of your edits to Writing, due to bias and inconsistency with the article's subject.

Please notify me on my talk page on what you think.

I am new here, so if I was supposed to send you a standard form, please let me know. Mathmagic (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Peri Bathous, Or the Art of Sinking in Poetry
An article that you have been involved in editing, Peri Bathous, Or the Art of Sinking in Poetry, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Лудольф (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC) ==

Лудольф (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► Woolsack ─╢ 09:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Isis
I've explained my reasoning over the queen-of-the-gods thing on the talk page.
 * As have I, because I did not feature your blaming me for someone else's revert, although...Modernist (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:FEED backlog
Hello, I see you made a request at WP:FEED a long time ago, but have continued to be active on Wikipedia and made good edits to the encyclopedia. Since you have posted on WP:FEED in the past, I would like to suggest that if you want please try and help out at the page, as we have a massive backlog. It'd be really great if you provided some advice to other, new users on their articles.

To do this, you'll just need to take a look at their article, which they'll post the link to, and maybe see what perhaps can be improved, like adding sections, references or links, much like you would do with any other article, except you are giving feedback rather than making actual edits. After getting some idea of what needs to be improved, you just need to tell them briefly underneath. It's really simple but incredibly useful to new users and their articles, and helps to overall increase the quality of these new articles.

I hope you will at least consider. Please send me a message if you have any further questions, or if you would like further information. Thanks a lot!

BTW, epic username. It makes me want to change mine. Chevy monte  carlo  14:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Help
Hello. I do not speak English and I speak to you with googel translator. I am inter-braces in the project and wonder what it is like. how do I use the project? When I make a change to the pages, how do I do?. I like these projects, and how do I use the account so I can be anonoym.

Much obliged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.207.160 (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you respond see this.-- Forty two  Thanks for all the fish!  16:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Oedipus
Hi. Glad to see that you're working on the Anti-Oedipus article. One little quibble, though: would you be able to add page numbers to the citations that you're adding? I'm not disputing the claims that you're making - it's just that we need to be able to demonstrate that they represent accurately D&G's argument, in a way that someone else can go check for themselves.

On a related note, I've been developing a completely new version of the Rhizome (philosophy) article, since I noticed that it's the D&G one that gets the most hits, after Gilles Deleuze. It's a long way from being completed, though. And I'm struggling through with trying to provide a definition and explanation of a-signifying signs (for the "a-signifying rupture" principle). I've been jumping around 1000P, AO, and Molecular Revolution, but it's proving more difficult than I thought. Do you have any recommendations, perhaps of secondary sources? Or any good examples that I can cite? DionysosProteus (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, looks like you're working from the old edition of AO. Rather annoyingly, the current one has different page numbers (hence the discrepancy between those given in the sources for the Foucault preface; though it makes up for it with a better cover--though the recent pengiun ed is even better). You can check the new numbers on the google books preview, if you like, or else I'll go through and correct at a later date. Watch for your spelling i/y too--spotted a few typos (psichic/psychic, analizes/analyzes)... Why did you ask for a citation for the "psychology, society, etc." sentence in the intro? Isn't that the self-evident content of the book? Also, you've added a citation pointing to the Foucault preface for the claim about the first cell of the fascist society, but Foucault doesn't make this argument there. I spent some time looking for where else he might have made it a little while ago ("Intellectuals and Power," I thought maybe), but I couldn't locate it. One final thing: you've introduced a use of "perversion" that mis-represents D&G's argument, I think. The point about the function of the family is that it creates an Oedipal, neurotic desire that hankers after its own repression. Perverse desire is something else entirely, and is clearly differentiated by D&G. Perversion reterritorialises in artificial territories, rather than in the family's oedipal structure. Hence Guy Hocquenghem's distinction between the perverse reterritorialisation of "gay" and the schizoanalytic "queer". The desire of the maschoist, particularly as explored in 1000P, is also perverse, rather than oedipal and neurotic. Neurosis, perversion, paranoia, and schizophrenia are all distinct categories for them, I think. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Dionysos, may I suggest that discussion about article improvement be held on their talk pages? Indeed, they aren't a private matter.--Sum (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. Though we are the only two editors in the last two years to contribute anything to it. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Debord SocietyofSpectacle.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Debord SocietyofSpectacle.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Grammarian
Hi, now that Grammarian is a disambiguation page, could you help re-point the links that need to go to an article per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Navigation popups with the popupFixDabs flag set to true is very useful. Also, if all the remaining links to Grammarian need to be re-pointed to a single article, let me know, and I can do a mass edit for you. -- Ja Ga  talk 11:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"WP: anatomy and sexuality, comparing importance assessment with penis"
Sum, from your comment anatomy and sexuality, comparing importance assessment with penis" I take it all your edits of the last three days randomly re-classing articles to "high importance", are vandalism. You have amended articles such as Narnian timeline and The Sot-Weed Factor. Reassessment is by request. Spanglej (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Narnian timeline had clearly an erroneous assessment which was higher than the novel itself.


 * There is no policy/guideline requiring importance reassessments to be done "by request." Your charges of vandalism are silly, but most importantly they are a breach of Assume good faith.--Sum (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, apologies for strong language and lack of good faith. Your comment "Comparing importance assessment with penis" seems to suggest you dismiss the classification system and quite a few of your assessments seem random. Are you working with the novels project? Spanglej (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The Talk:Smegma article wasn't yet listed and assessed for the WPs Sexuality and Anatomy; in the importance scale, I gave it one grade below the assessments for Talk:Penis. You find some assessments random, can you be more specific and give some examples? I am a member of the WP Novels. A few reassessment are fixes to obvious errors, like underrating of non-English classics of literature history like Talk:One Thousand and One Nights and talk:Gargantua and Pantagruel. Other reasons for reassessment were some children novels that were over assessed as Top importance among novels in general; works historically relevant and highly influential among other writers, but little known to the mass market, that were underrated, like those of John Barth, Calvino, Samuel beckett, Andrei Bely and Borges. Dostoyevsky's Talk:The Idiot, was demoted to high importance as his most important novels are C&P and BK. In short, It seems to me all demotions/promotions are quite obvious to any expert in literature.Sum (talk) 11:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The importance assessments look pretty questionable and changing that many without discussion comes across as tendentious. 69.111.195.229 (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * There are about 50 changes. I don't know all the books but there are enough in there to suggest it hasn't been discussed. List of To Kill a Mockingbird characters, Narnian timeline and Cosmicomics are some examples of mis-classification, but the point is, classification is not just a matter of opinion. You may say it's "quite obvious to any expert in literature" and that you think some of books are "under-rated" by society but that's not how it works. See WikiProject Novels/Assessment and WikiProject Novels/Assessment which says "N.B. Discussion on which articles should be included in the "Top" priority class takes place here"  WikiProject Novels/Assessment/Top-important. I have not been involved I'd advise finding out more from the project.  Spanglej (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lowering the importance of Dostoyevsky's "The Idiot" to "high" while raising several minor John Barth books (including one that wasn't even a novel) to the same level was especially ludicrous. 66.127.54.226 (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was asked to come and comment on the importance assessments as one of the More active members of WP:Novels. As a student of Literature, to a large extent I agree with the articles that were added to top-class, which are highly important for other than anglo-centric literatures. However, I strongly disagree with many of the choices to change from top to high class. The articles where chosen as top for one reason or another, and since we have an anglo-centric audience whose canon strongly relies on many of those books, they should not be given a different importance. I am changing many of them back, please do not undo my edits.
 * As for the Discussion page for Top-class articles, we haven't used that in quite a while, as far as I can tell. The only active assessment page is the main one as far as I can tell, and you will get a response within a couple hours to almost any request, see WikiProject Novels/Assessment. Sadads (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)