User talk:Mtevfrog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Mtevfrog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  HighInBC 23:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Contents 1 Derrida 2 Sarah Kofman 3 Tendentious editing on Being and Time 4 reverting on B&T 5 Abbas Kiarostami 5.1 Your message 6 RfC on Lucas 7 Your message 8 Kiarostami 9 Being and Time 10 Abbas Kiarostami 11 Derrida 12 Disruption on page 13 Kiarostami 14 Citizendium 15 Kiarostami: FAC 16 Technics and Time, 1 17 Kiarostami was promoted! 18 Please learn grammar rules 19 Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers

[edit] Derrida

As I said on Talk:Jacques Derrida: You're doing a good job editing and clarifying the Jacques Derrida article, but please try not to delete so much material. Your last few edits in particular have removed a large amount of material that was clearly salvageable, and still informative and useful despite its muddiness. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Kofman

I'll see what I can do to reflect your suggestions when I'm finally able to submit the changes that the proxies refuse to accept. You're right to insist that addressing her autobiographical writing requires a certain delicacy, and I shouldn't wish to cause disinterest in so doing, any more than I would want to fail to draw interest it richly but patiently deserves. Kofman is one of those figures who exacerbates the difficulties in articulating relations between life and work.

I didn't want to be flagged for original research in attempting to contrast her with Cixous as someone who so often writes autobiography as fiction. One might begin by saying that Kofman felt the need to do so much other work before she thought she could write Rue Ordener, rue Labat and that she wrote it in a way that seemed to set it apart from all her other writing. With a good deal more work, one could try to articulate this with Smothered Words and the significance of the particular respect accorded to Blanchot in that work. One might try as well to indicate whether the collection of essay in honour of Kofman is entitled Enigmas not only in tribute to her work but in characterising her generally. Not sure yet, but I'll keep reading and do what I can to reflect that reading in the article. Buffyg 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tendentious editing on Being and Time

See my message on the talk page of that article. Dbuckner 19:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reverting on B&T

Thanks for your thoughful comment on my talk page. I do not consider myself to be more competent on articles than certain others. My point of view on certain issues may not be completely conformist to the kinf of editorship wiki-philosophy is attracting, this is another matter. As to scholarship levels, perhaps both yourself and the user, 2917(?) have high levels of scholarship, I'm of the opinion that you do. However this may be a problem insofars as it is some attempt to "show scholarship" and write for scholars thus ignoring other wiki readers.

As to reverting wholesale. It was I who was first reverted wholesale. Importantly, and aside from trying to compare titles of scholarship etc., when I made my edits I gave very explicit reasons for them on the talk page. Yet reversions persisted without a single comment to talk. This shows arogance and not scholarship. I do not consider the direction the B&T page is taking to be the right one, it is trying to summarise whole swaths of a very difficult text in few paragraphs of idiosyncratic language. The direction I wish to take the page is pedagogical (just look at the talk page on Continental there to see the difficulties and objections even analytic philosophers find here). -- Lucas (Talk) 19:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbas Kiarostami

Thanks for helping out (the article needs it). Just two points, though: first, the naming convention is that preositions aren't capitalised in a title unless they're the first or last words, or part of a phrasal verb. The title of the film should therefore be "Close-Up". Secondly:

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mtevfrog and thanks for your helps. Please also see the ongoing discussions here. User: Melitis continuously reverted Ernst Stavro Blofeld and me calling us unexperienced editors! Sangak 10:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, in fact I didn't call them that (I said that Sangak shouldn't just revert more experienced editors without discussion). It appears that Sangak is unclear about the notions of plagiarism and copyright-violation, as well as the Manual of Style. That's OK, so long as he's prepared to learn (and the MoS in particular is long and complicated, and sometimes changes, so ignorance of it is no shame; I get it wrong on occasion too), but he seems too emotionally overwrought at the moment to stop and consider the situation.

Again, though, thanks for your work on the article; it's slowly getting to an acceptable standard. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It was the highly experienced user Elitis who first reverted Ernst Stavro Blofeld with no explanation on the talk pages. I just rv it back to Ernst Stavro Blofeld. That's all. Sangak 11:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have been asked to step in and help out the serious bias!! issue on the Iranian film director. Please see my comments on the user talks page of the editors concerned and you'll see I absolutely agree there is amajor problem with the neuatrality and copywright in places. I am trying to rectify the problem asap to please respect my editing -I have rewritten to very beginning to 1974 so far its reading a lot better already -but the bulk of the article needs restructuring , copyright editing and professional sourcing. It needn't be a massacre as you suggested but rather a major problem that can be addressed very quickly with some quality editing between us. I hope you'll respect this. THe section for critical acclaim at the bottom I have tagged again so you won't delete- this will be neuatrlaized -surely the direcotr has had negatv ecriticsim - I hope the paragrpah will develop my addressing both sides ofhis reception also looking at his controversy - a neutral encyclopedic stand point which I will achive as soon as I can. Al the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

But look I am not going to bother if you think I am "undermining" something. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

i see what you mean; the almost hysterical flurry of editing has introduced lots of errors, plus more PoV language, and has reverted much of the work you and I had already done. Hardly any of it has even an edit summary, and none is properly explained anywhere. Experience tells me that we're not going to get anywhere while this is going on. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as long as Etitis considers others "hysterical" , praises his own eidts and a few minutes of his "works" and is reluctant to reply questions to editors who spent days on the article, nothing will work. Sangak 18:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mtevfrog

I spent a long time on this topic. I barely knew anything about it before. I studied hard and wrote a draft. I was working to bring it to good status. Then I have been criticised by Etitis. I understood I will not be allowed to work. then I decided to invite others to step in and help so that it is not my pov. I can not do anything else but inviting people totake part. I don't want to be insulted any more. I have never felt insulted during 2.5 years of being a wikipedian. Sangak 18:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what I should do. I am just tired. I asked more than 10 other editors to come and help. I wish I was a native speaker and I could write the article in my own words easily. I am just too tired. Thanks anyways. Sangak 19:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I leave the article for now to take a rest. I really need it.Sangak 19:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Lucas

I am gathering evidence against Lucas, who is proving a 'difficult editor' for a number of us. I have started a page here. This includes most of his recent edits, but nothing on his articles that sadly ended up as cases for deletion. Anyone with suitable diffs, please put them there, or on my talk page. Let's clear up this town once and for all. Dbuckner 12:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your message

Thanks for letting me know. Roughly speaking, one editor (on whose RfA I voted "oppose" incidentally, partly because of this article, which may explain some of his emotionalism) is introducing poor English, while the other is introducing PoV language (though there's some overlap in their roles). I hope that, when the frantic editing has calmed down, it will be possible to go to the article and try to start cleaning up after them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I stupid to introduce poor English to an article I spent days on it? Am I stupid to intentionally destroy an iconic figure of my country because someone voted negative for me? It is clear who is emotional here. Etitis needs along time to become a good wikipedian. He does not even follow very basic rules of wikipedia like assuming good faith. Now I understand why some of my friend left wikipedia forever. Sangak 19:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain what you mean, but I haven't mentioned stupidity, nor have I suggested that you deliberately introduced poor English; you did so because English isn't your first language, and you're somewhat weak in it. No problem in itself; the trouble is that you kicked up such a fuss when I tried to correct things (and especially with regard to removing copyright violations), and that you've edited the article so intensively that it's going to be a big job to clean it up. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Yes I agree — though it's disconcerting way of editing, and one that makes it difficult for other editors to get a look in. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiarostami

Dear Mtevfrog, I made a draft of the article here:User:Draft-Abbas Kiarostami (the version after some edits by you and Elitis). I think it is a good idea that we work on the article there and when it got completed we can replace it with the original version. We can also compare two versions at the end and by this we can exploit the works of every one who helped. It is very kind of you if you could help there. I also asked a film student who is also native speaker and some others to help. Thanks and take care. Sangak 10:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Thanks. Sangak 12:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Being and Time

I sincerely hope you reconsider your decision to leave Being and Time for a while. Your edits are some of the most accurate and well-sourced that I can tell, and the group would really benefit from your knowledge of the material. I myself usually ignore disputes and stick to the content of articles, often times just waiting the few days it takes for emotionally charged editors to wander off, but I wanted to let you know in any case, that your hardwork is appreciated. Be well, and good luck in the future. - Sam 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I second that. It was obvious in a few seconds that your approach, and the quality of your edits was of the first order. As you see from the comments on the Philosophy talk page, it is not Lucas I blame. It is the inability of the system here to deal quickly and effectively with people like him. Dbuckner 07:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not think you should stop editing either, you contribute in a thoughful way to the editing. And you are especially knowledgeable on the translation issue. -- Lucas (Talk) 07:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks slightly for your comment on my talk page, I understand to some extent what you attempt to say, but will not get into the minutia of it here as it seems your mind is made up. -- Lucas (Talk) 07:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have changed your mind again. In any case welcome back. See the issue on Being and Time talk page: "Do we need to highlight Heidegger's neologistic language early in the article?" I also have made a section there on "peculiar jargon".

As to making a spelling mistake leaving out a 'c' in "acclimatize", well, I am human and usually rely on spell checker programs. The other issues you raise with it do not hold water. It is true to say that "during the course of writing B&T Heidegger found that he needed to use certain neologism". It is not bad English to say something is "sufficient to the task" and "Heideggerean" is not badly spelt. Now, unless you want me to just believe things you say because you claim some kind of oracular power, please do not take this as any reflection upon my opinion of your editing. -- Lucas (Talk) 08:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You should consider cooling off, and sticking to the content of the articles you're working on. Feeding the animals is exhausting, exacerbates the tension, and only distracts more from the real issue at hand. - Sam 18:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbas Kiarostami

You seem to beleive I am doing the opposite from helping him? How think removing copywright and bias is bad? Answer me please Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem mate. I honestly beleived I have helped it a lot a]I've given it structure b] I've removed most of the gushing comments c] I have attempted to counteract bias by providing equal criticism he has received to provide a neutral discussion using professional sources d] I have removed direct copywright. I agree its not perfect - its gonna need a lot of work still. I think it reads ok but it now flows. It really is not as bad now as is being portrayed. You have my blessing to improve it but please repsect my work this is all I ask for. All the best Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

THe reason I appeared to work so frantically on the article was because I was in fear that the copywright would be deleted by you or Mel and felt it would be a shame if the info was totally removed when it could be restructured and fit in the with the article. SO I began reorganizing it quickly to remove the direct copywright which is serious and to rid of those ridiculously overly pov comments - I am aware there are a few typos and some awkward phrasing here and there but this is really on quite minor now and is certainly not worse than before!! Feel free to correct those typos . Saludos amigo! Ernst Stavro Blofeld 18:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah hi. I have just read it and made a few more minor improvements- hey all you removed is exactly what I saw as the faults but didn't get round to it good stuff. - the reception section is now really neutral- in fact criticism is covered slightly more than praise but tone needs addressing - I have placed the tone tag in that section. Intro is better too, I'm sure you'll agree its looking a lot better than several days ago? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. Given that there are many many!! sites many of them professional sources there should be a wealth of other info that can be gradually added as I feel the article could be a bit more in depth. but as the copywright and bias has been addressed I see no urgency to frantically edit as before, so I'll let you continue the good work. I would suggest that if any more info is found that it is put in the talk pages for the time being where it can be discussed how it can be intergrated into the article with direct copywright and pov!! I beleive San has already started doing this-nice to see. All the best. El Criminal Ernst Stavro Blofeld 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derrida

The edit is written in a pretty jargony tone, and suffers appreciably from it, but it's sensible, and I do think it's probably revisable. At least revisable enough to be worth keeping around. Maybe a section cleanup tag? Phil Sandifer 04:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption on page

Thanks. Actually I am interested in Being and Time, but as an observer. My main interest is that non-painful editors are able to work productively without harassment and endless winds blowing in wrong direction. I have added your diffs to my User:Dbuckner/Problem editors page. I think there is enough material there to get a ban or at least a block. Let's see. Dbuckner 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiarostami

I have just seen your recent edits on the article. Just to say thank you! Sangak 20:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Have added a professional filmography with filming specifics such as length etc. Hope you like it Ernst Stavro Blofeld 12:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a signifcant amount of new info to the article but I have found alot on one site to add and pasted in the talk page for the time being. Part of it will flow on at the bottom of the style paragraph which is dicussing the same topic of distance vs close-up in another of his films. I want to at least double the length of that cinematic style section and structure it by mode of style in sub paragrpahs rather than one great big paragrpah. The reception section needs expanding by a third too . I have found some more info on criticism but I also need to find some more praise as this is actually undermined at present. With the new sections on Film jury work at festivals and personal life hoping to be expanded and your help this could become a very good article soon enoughErnst Stavro Blofeld 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Your editing is very good.. See the talk page of Abbas for the layout I have in mind -its progessing quite nicely now I thinkErnst Stavro Blofeld 14:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

There will soon enough be a large paragraph in the style section of Life and Death:Change and Continuity -a major part of his work -themes reflected in the Koker trilogy with the earthquake and the life force amist tragedy and human resilience to death but also themes of suicide illustrated in the late 1970s film and in films such as Taste of cherry I think with Mr Baddei challenged in the face of taking his own life to help another etc. Also I plan another paragraph under poetic imagery (which wil also be filled out) named Religion and sprituality addressing such issues in his films. What do you think of my ideas? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Once all of that information is rewritten and incorpoarted into the article and rewritten and reworded sveral times with the whole article copy edited and tone in places completely sorted with any minor copywright issies corrected it should qualify for an A-class article eventually I think. It'll need a lot of copy editing but we are on the right track I hope Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

yes I agree. I beleive that there are some sentences about the Koker trilogy in the career section which would look better in this planned paragraph. I want this paragrpah to be one of the largest and most detailed - I have found a number of professional sources discussing that dominat theme and also change and conitnuity as I suggested with the eathquakes disster of the early 1990s. I feel if I had seen any of his films I could add a great deal of info but unfortunately I never had - but i do think I am grasping an undersanding using varous sources. Surelt there are other themes what about politics? Ernst Stavro Blofeld 23:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

What about more info on his earlier life? If you look at that critically acclaimed Indian director which is a feature a lot of info is there about his earlier years. A good way to develop this would be to use a featured article as a guide to what full content is required for a director to reach the high levels of classification. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 23:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. The artistic element in his work seems very strong but a featured article will need to take into account both to some degree -it is under a biography after all- although I don't see the need for much more on his bio. I don't suggest much more on his backgorund but Sanjayit Ray even has mentioning of his ancenstry! If you could develop a strong parapgraph in the talk page that would be great Ernst Stavro Blofeld 23:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm also occupied for the next few days, But if I do have some spare time I'll begin to write in the talk page. As that develops I think it necessary to add a screenshot of the earthquake in one of the Koker for commentray it'll look good.

Good night now. I'm off the bed! All the best and take care Ernst Stavro Blofeld 00:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added a lot more detail today. If the page looks worse I apologise as it needs a lot of copy editing but if I can create the main bulk of the article using the various sources and then go through and copy edit I feel it a good way to do it. I am stil planning a paragrpah on the spritualitywhich is untouched in the talk page. I have added a few images I feel really help the article. bringing things together and highlighting important concepts in his work. Feel free to work on improving sentencing as it is mostly a first draft Ernst Stavro Blofeld 20:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes as Ernst wrote, we added a lot of info to the article (mainly about poetry and "life and death"), several images and also almost 60% of references were formatted. Please help us with the english language, format etc when you have time.Sangak 21:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I also asked a friend of mine to update the French version of the article accordingly. Sangak 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the Spiritualiy section today. Take care. Sangak 17:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I worked out all references. It was very time consuming job. Please see the article. I aksed Francis to edit the article. He made some changes. Please help us with copy editing when you have time. I will ask for a peer review as well. Thanks a lot. Sangak 22:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizendium

Hi Mtevfrog. I am almost certainly moving to Citizendium. There's a good community there, a number of good philosophers, and (apart from some questions I have as to whether the Ludvikus problem could theoretically occur there). I would very much welcome your involvement. Your writing is first class, and you have a firm grasp of areas of philosophy I have never even approached. Let me know if you have any questions. It really has got too mad here. Dbuckner 08:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiarostami: FAC

Hi

I would like to invite all those who reviewed "Abbas Kiarostami" during last two months to comment on the article at this "final" stage. The article is now featured article candidate. In case you have any comment, please let me know on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbas Kiarostami page. Thanks.Sangak 16:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see Kiarostami has now been FA nominated. Quite a turn around from several weeks ago!! I think it is at an A-class level now but I still think it needs some professional wiriting on it to make it a FA Ernst Stavro Blofeld 17:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC) article has now been improved further still and I have polished off some words and phrases. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 15:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, It was already A-class two weeks ago. Over the last two weeks it has been copyedited and improved significantly. see here I changed the article based on a long list of comments during peer review and GA assessment. The size of the article was redcuced from 74 kb to 54 kb. Three other copyeditors copyedited the article from top to the end. It is now quite close to FA, as many told me. Sangak 19:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Technics and Time, 1

Nice work! it's above my head though. Are you a philosopher? I am just curious! Take care. Sangak 16:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kiarostami was promoted!

Dear User:Mtevfrog

I need to thank ("a special thanks") you for your kind assistance. The article would not come to FA status without your helps. Thanks and All the best. Sangak ^Talk 11:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please learn grammar rules

Regarding the "deletion of unnecessary duplication" in the Nietzsche article, I have to ask you to please learn some grammar rules regarding commas with the use of "and," "or," and "but." If there is NO subject after "but," then one should place no comma. However, there was a comma in that sentence, but no subject. For instance, some examples for you:

• I will go to school tomorrow, but I need to do my homework first (comma necessary; subject is "I").
• I will go to school tomorrow and talk to my teachers (comma unnecessary, as there is no subject).
• I will go to school tomorrow but will leave early (comma unnecessary, as there is no subject).

I hope you have learned something from this grammar lesson, and please don't delete "unneccessary changes" again, as they are, in fact, necessary.

Thanks, Elb2000 23:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)elb2000.

Nice, splitting that long sentence into two sentences was a good idea. No harm, no foul.Elb2000 23:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)elb2000

[edit] Wikiproject Actors and Filmakers

Hey see my proposals at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Actor and Filmmakers and the main WP Film and Biography talk page. Know anybody who is interested? Actors and all film people articles need a body on wikipedia to upkeep them asthey need more focus -it would be a part of Biogrpahy and Film. If you are interested or know somebody who would be, please let them know and whether you think it is a good progession for the project or not. Please leave your views at the council or biogrpahy main talk page. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"I've been expecting you"} 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)