User talk:Dknauss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Plowman 3 Robert Crowley 4 User categorization 5 Metrical psalter 6 Thanks for contributing to wikipedia 7 Good Work! 8 Across the sea.. 9 Welcome back 10 Image copyright problem with Image:Tnp.jpg 11 Chaucer vs Dante, Petrarca and Boccacio 12 Possibly unfree Image:Tnp.jpg

Welcome!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

== Creating Articles == Good work creating new articles. When you create things, it helps tremendously to assign them to an accurate category (see WP:CG for info). If you're really not sure about categories, at least assign your new articles a stub category (see WP:SC for info). By assigning a category, you help make sure your new articles don't get lost as 'orphans' that are not associated with related topics. Feco 19:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plowman

I agree I really didnt look too hard, did a Google images search on Piers Plowman and picked the first one that had a plowman (it's one of the greatest hits medieval images). The article could easily benefit from 4 or 5 images, and this one could be superceeded by somthing else, it's a start. BTW your additions are excellent, the previous article was sadly lacking for a long time. Also welcome to the Medieval group. Stbalbach 01:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Crowley

Why did you blank and mark for deletion the article Robert Crowley (c.1517–1588)? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because I created it, forgot how I distinguished it from the Robert Crowley (20thC dude) entry, couldn't find it in the search engine, and started a new one: Robert Crowley (printer). Someone else actually just changed it to that last designation, which is interesting in light of the fact that the small amount of scholarship on Crowley says he was not a printer but just a bookseller--though it's a specious argument (and one I reject) in the view of the leading and unparallelled expert on the early English print trade. He'll publish on the matter eventually, and I doubt anyone here is going to contest calling RC a printer. Anyway, the old info is edited and moved over there. Dan Knauss

I'm a bit confused. I renamed the article Robert Crowley (printer) (on the basis of the article), and there wasn't yet an article of that name; had it been deleted? I've also moved the other Robert Crowley to Robert Crowley (CIA), and made Robert Crowley into a disambiguation page.

Incidentally, the standard format for for dates is: "(bbbb–dddd)", not "(born bbbb, died dddd)". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. The page you renamed was the second of two pages on the same man; I started it after losing the first. When it started showing up in the search engine, I marked it for deletion and consolidated the info on the newer page that you have properly renamed. I'll work on expanding it in the future.

Why did you delete the links for demy and probationer fellow, etc.? There are no entries for them, but creating links invites the creation of such entries, right? Dan Knauss

It's recommended that the ratio of links to text not be too high, and red links should only be included when there's a good chance that articles will be written. I very much doubt that a Wikipedia article could be provided for either of these (both of them out-dated terms suitable at best for Wiktionary, the former extremely obscure).

Note, incidentally, Wikipedia:Manual of style#Quotation marks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll get around to writing them, for wiktionary or whatever. Since several entries use those terms, they need explanation. How can any knowledge be "out-dated" for an encyclopedia? If the likes of John Foxe and Edmund Spenser are not out-dated, then demy and sizar and probationer-fellow are relevant terms. Additionally, terminal punctuation goes inside the close-parenthesis. This is not Britopedia. Dan Knauss

1. I didn't say that the knowledge was out-dated, but that the terms were. "Demy" probably belongs in Wiktionary (I can't see the scope for a Wikipedia article), but "Probationer Fellow" is just a straightforward combination of two English words, and wouldn't even appear in a dictionary.
2. I'm disappointed that you didn't bother to look at the link to the Wikipedia manual of style, but chose instead to adopt a rather confrontational tone. The quotation-mark issue is clearly stated in the document to which I linked; punctuation goes outside inverted commas unless it's part of what is being quoted. Moreover, the Manual of Style also says that the national variety of English should match the subject matter where relevant; thus an article on an English printer should use British English, and an article on an American printer should use U.S. English. The creator of the article can use whatever style of English with which she's most familiar, but other editors are free (indeed, encouraged) to change it where appropriate. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is an asinine style. Is T. S. Eliot American or English? I intend to post useful information; by the magic of wikipedia, editorial pedantry can be left to those who find it profoundly fulfilling. Dan Knauss

You were the one making an issue of punctuation by reverting my edits, and then asserting that my use of it was wrong despite my providing the link to the Manual of Style; I just quietly did the editing. If it pleases you to accuse others of pedantry in such cases, it's no skin off my nose. If you don't like Wikipedia policy on style, though, argue against it in the proper place, but please don't try to impose your views on the community. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:50, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone said pedantry is an accusation against people with higher standards. I'm not so sure. Arguing against a rule in the community is an attempt to impose a view. No community without impositions.

I'm afraid that I can't make much sense of this comment, whoever left it. However, to Dpknauss, wasn't it rather petty to change 'recognise' to 'recognize' in Vestments controversy, given the above? I realise that you're unwilling (or unable?) to use U.K. English spelling when you add text (e.g., 'humour'), but changing what's there is another matter. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Look, I did that reflexively. It's not how I spell. If you want to nit-pick that stuff, wait until I'm done. Dan Knauss 16:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I changed the capitalization of "Christian" in the recently added book title, because the eccentric capitalization follows how the title was actually capitalized in the original publication. (Early printed books frequently capitalize eccentrically.) Dan Knauss

Hi Dan, I too find that specific language in our style manual to be somewhat asinine, but we must consider that the policy was written to address the large swath of articles where is it fairly easy to identify the appropriate dialect. In general having all of English Wikipedia in one dialect would be advantageous, but that would only be possible at the expense of having at least three English forks, which would clearly be wasteful. What we have is a compromise, but I like your attitude on it "by the magic of wikipedia, editorial pedantry can be left to those who find it profoundly fulfilling". Just realize that occasional a pedant is going to come nag you from time to time, but no one should fail to accept a statement that you don't feel competent writing in en_GB and that they are welcome to update your writing. --Gmaxwell 14:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Mel seemed to assume that I should be fluent in British spellings. Dan Knauss 17:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User categorization

Greetings, Dpknauss! Please accept this message as an invitation to categorize your user page in the category Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin and removing your name from the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Wisconsin page. The page will be removed when all users have been removed.

For more information, please see Wikipedia:User categorisation and Category:Wikipedians by location. -- Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 04:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metrical psalter

A note of thanks for your contributions to this article. The Daniell book skips over Crowley in favour of Sternhold and Hopkins. One question: do you have access to a copy of Crowley's rendition of Psalm 24? The remainder of the article uses this as a reference point since it was rhymed in most of the various versions. Smerdis of Tlön 16:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

yes, I have access to an electronic copy--the EEBO pdf scans of the STC microforms. would you like me to check something in it for you? Dan Knauss 17:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping that you would be able to give the first two verses of Crowley's translation of Psalm 24 to the article, for purposes of comparison with the versions from the other psalters. Smerdis of Tlön 11:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem; it's in. I also added an image of Crowley's musical notation. Using the entry on neumes I tried translating it to modern notation to make a midi version, but I don't think I got it quite right, and I am stuck with pretty poor free composing software. Might try again later if no one else is interested. Dan Knauss 03:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for contributing to wikipedia

Thanks for contributing to wikipedia. The good and the bad of human behavior is here in cyberspace just as it is in meatspace. Please don't take the preening of the self-righteous too seriously. A "crime" in wikipedia-land is punished by being forbidden to edit for 24 hours! Imagine the immaturity you have to have for that to be a punishment. But the system works: the self-important do THOUSANDS of useful things every month to improve wikipedia and the immature DO feel punished for their immature disruptive behaviors. Just be aware "trust me" doesn't work in the context of wikipedia. Verifyablility is important. WAS 4.250

[edit] Good Work!

I would have emailed, but you didn't specify an address. Anyhow, I just wanted to say "Good work" on the Vestments Controversy article. Very professionally done.

I have a group of friends who get together regularly to discuss church history. This semester, we're focusing on the background to the Westminster Confession of Faith and our topic for this week is English Puritanism in the reign of Elizabeth I. I was about to write a synopsis of the Vestiarian Controversy when I discovered that your article covered the topic in much more depth than I would have been able to. (Which is unusual for Wikipedia, which often has pretty shallow treatment for topics like this.) Thanks again.

Adam_sk 01:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

thanks--glad it helped! Dknauss 22:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s. did you check the John Hooper entry and others related to the Vest. row?

[edit] Across the sea..

here I come :) ..Hello Dan,
Allow me to introduce myself: my name is Edoardo and I'm coming from Italian Wiki. I'm keen about Geoffrey Chaucer and about his work: so, I decided to write a little page about one of his work, Treatise on the Astrolabe. There is a problem: I know little about middle english, but I am not sure about my ability, so it would be pleasing to me to check if I really understand everything well. Do you know if there is a sort of paraphrase about Treatise on internet? I did not find it :(. Thank you in advice :)

Edoardo SkedO - Italian user

Edoardo, I'll take a look at what you've got. I only browsed through the Treatise once. I don't know of any sites on it. If google turns up nothing, look up larry d. benson's chaucer page at the harvard uni. website and try there. Dknauss 22:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome back

Welcome back to Wikipedia. Let me know if there is any way I can be of further assistance to you. Cheers, alphachimp 21:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks--looks like everything is fine! Dknauss 22:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Tnp.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Tnp.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.--The Evil Spartan 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that, being a screenshot, pd-self does not apply in this instance. I would request that you read up a little more on our image policies - I would have tagged as a screenshot myself, but I don't know what kind of screenshot (e.g., {{tv-screenshot}})? The Evil Spartan 23:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chaucer vs Dante, Petrarca and Boccacio

Hello Dknauss, I'm a little student and not a great critic. My ability to write in English is quite bad, so be kind with me :P. I don't think we can compare so much Chaucer with Italians writer, just because Chaucer's work are quite different from Divina Commedia, Decameron or Il Canzoniere: Canterbury Tales and Chaucer's Troilus were only influenced by those works. I don't like compare writers coming from different country and writing in different language, because I'm only italian native-speaker and maybe I can't really understand the quality and the abilites of this writer :). Anyway, reading Canterbury Tales, I think there's no comparison between Chaucer and Dante, more between Chaucer and Petrarca. In my humble opinion, Boccaccio and Chaucer are very similar, but not the same - Boccaccio makes me tickled pink, Chaucer less :). Decameron is fantastic.. :P

--SkedO 15:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall ever comparing Chaucer and Boccaccio on Wikipedia. Boccaccio IS a major source for Chaucer, so of course there are similarities, and of course any two things that are similar are "not the same," i.e. identical. There IS a large body of academic writing in the fields of Comparative Literature, English and Italian literature that compares or does some kind of mutual consideration of the two authors.

It is a different thing altogether to judge the artistic merit of the two, which is invariably an effort to rationalize one's own tastes and preference for one thing over another. Such acts are interesting and informative in the area of literary history.

For instance, Chaucer became and English "great" when he was needed as such, or when such a thing was possible. In the English Renaissance and Reformation era, when there was an emerging English nation or state--which also happened to be officially Protestant with more and less official versions of the identity of the true church--a historical consciousness had to emerge as a matter of identity, faith and politics. What was one to do with the "medieval"--and "papist" past--which Chaucer was part of? various individuals and interests felt a need for an English literary canon of sorts and a pantheon of great authors, so they engaged in retrospective efforts to organize and authorize a usable past.

Under such processes, Chaucer had to be grafted onto older lineages, i.e. continental sources. One could say Chaucer was a successor to Italian greats, which ties him into the Latin, classical past with predecessors like Boccaccio playing the role of venerable fathers. Or if one had dislike of things Italian and Latinate, one could minimize their role and relevance, or say Chaucer is clearly superior, or simply regard him as an original, "pure English," in a rather nativist view of English history. People of this latter persuasion in the 16th century and after sometimes spun Celtic/Gaelic sources as significant, found "protestant ideas" in Chaucer, and created printed editions of the "Works of Chaucer" that imaged and sold him as such. Consequently there were--and remain--very different Chaucers accepted by different people for different reasons, and endless arguments as to what the "real truth" is/was. Dan Knauss (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Tnp.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Tnp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

fixed. Dan Knauss (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)