User talk:Chips Critic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

Contents

[edit] Davies

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

[edit] Fritz Lang

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

[edit] Go talk to John Milton

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

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

[edit] Thanks

Ah, thanks. I'm not even going to bother going to DRV/U after the way Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Userbox_debates#Template:User_Communist User Communist is going. TheJabberwʘck 17:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] The Beast in the Jungle

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

[edit] W.Somerset Maugham

Given your previous or current interest in Somerset Maugham - can you please add any thoughts you might have at Talk:W. Somerset Maugham#What next? Peer Review? so that we can move the article up a notch? VirtualSteve 09:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] do you feel like revisiting Bisexual erasure again?

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

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