User talk:Dulcem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia - some useful links for you
|
[edit] Daffy Duck
The more I think about it, the more this debate reminds me a lot of the "Daffy 'Dumas' Duck" nonsense that was inspired by one joke in The Scarlet Pumpernickel. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is part of it, from almost 2 years ago: [1] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Quite interesting. I understand AK's viewpoint, which is that of a big fan who wants things to make some sort of internally logical sense . . . But these are, in the end, cartoon characters, and all signs point to there being, really, no internal logical sense in their world. I wonder, though . . . Does this make him Plucky Dumas Duck? — Dulcem (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe. And this continuity problem is not limited to the WB cartoons. There have been books written (for real) about inconsistencies within the Star Trek universe, for example. That's the hazard of having countless writers inventing new ideas for shows and films, being unaware of some prior "facts" that they are contradicting. They would know about the major stuff, like transporters and starships and the general idea of what the individual characters are like, but it's unreasonable to expect them to know every bit of minutia that preceded them. It's reasonable to assume that even if the writers were the same, inconsistencies would still arise. I expect there are cases where a single writer would contradict himself over time. The fact is, the real world is consistent, and the fictional world is not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Quite interesting. I understand AK's viewpoint, which is that of a big fan who wants things to make some sort of internally logical sense . . . But these are, in the end, cartoon characters, and all signs point to there being, really, no internal logical sense in their world. I wonder, though . . . Does this make him Plucky Dumas Duck? — Dulcem (talk) 13:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for weighing in
Hey. Thanks for your remarks at Talk: Blackface. Verklempt has tried this same sort of thing at Jazz in the past. I'd like to assume good faith, but I believe he's being intentionally obtuse/contrarian. So, minstrelsy is your thing, huh? I came across this bangin' repro poster on eBay.[2] I love it. I'd order a huge one, but I'm wondering where the hell I'd put it. :/ deeceevoice (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ha ha, I can't say I'm much of a collector of that type of thing, though. :) I'm more interested in minstrelsy's role as the beginnings of American pop culture. Most Americans are blissfully ignorant that every SNL they watch, every Bugs Bunny cartoon they show their kids, every song they listen to on the Top 40 radio station . . . It all came from white dudes ripping off black dudes about 150 years ago. By the way, I've got a very rough first draft of a rewrite/expansion of Master Juba in my sandbox. It's very rough, but comments are welcome. — Dulcem (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] February 2008
Hi, the recent edit you made to Kobold has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. · AndonicO Hail! 00:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm confused. I've completely rewritten the article, and I am hoping to put it up for featured article status soon. The long list of trivia is certainly going to be a hindrance to that, so I removed it with what could be said from reliable sources. I am certainly not "testing", and as your boilerplate text suggests, I did provide an edit summary. I'm not sure what the problem is here . . . — Dulcem (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- And there was an informative edit summary too. Very odd! DuncanHill (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DYK
 |
On February 26, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Master Juba, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
- Hey, that's cool! Thanks! — Dulcem (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Great work on that article; extremely comprehensive and, not to mention, extremely interesting! Kakofonous (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.
[edit] Hödekin
|
On 28 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hödekin, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
|
On March 3, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Roby, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
[edit] On a different tack....
I was planning to work up Fairy ring at some stage too as it combines two of my favourite topics, fungi and fairies. I haven't any material referencing german folklore on this at all, but Anglophone stuff only. Is there any in the books you have? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- That would be a fun one to work on. I've got a conference over the next few days, but I'll see what I can dig up later next week. — Dulcem (talk) 14:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Minstrel show
Just to let you know that, in view of the severe and wholly unjustified ad hominem attacks I received yesterday from the editor who added the tag to the article - on a different but related issue, Thurman Ruth - I'm not willing to put my head above the parapet to take the tag off the article on this occasion. See mainly User talk:Mattisse#Thurman Ruth - make what you will of that discussion and its various other threads. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, while I do agree that the article should make use of some other works on blackface minstrelsy, it seems the issue has been settled at this point. Sorry to see you had such an ugly exchange earlier. And thanks for speaking up on the talke page of minstrel show! — Dulcem (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Blackface minstrelcy
I'd put a seealso tag on Blackface leading to Minstrel show. Robert Greer (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I try to avoid "see alsos" whenever possible (preferring to link things in context in the body of the article), but if you want to add a see also, you are free to do so. :) — Dulcem (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Retiarius
Quick comment on retiarius. Really excellent lead-in. Language is short, sweet and to the point, carrying plenty of interest, while remaining strictly encyclopedic and factual. The "effeminacy" and "skilled lovers" bits are fantastic, helpful human interest and cultural context; however they scream for citation. I don't doubt they're true, but I'd love detailed refs to the Latin authors, or at least to modern historians commenting on them. A footnote (after the punctuation following such claims) is what I'm used to looking for — and I often check them out — in my life, articles are just cover letters for the Bibliography, which is what I'm really interested in.
I'll keep copy-editing, and give more feedback per peer-review shortly. The article is full of notable, verifiable content, expressed clearly and from a NPOV — exactly what Wiki wants to offer to readers. Thanks for your work (so far) ;) Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Self-correction here. I've read the rest of the article now, and I see what you've done. The lead is clear of footnotes, because everything is covered in the body. I like that style!
- I still think more evidence from primary sources needs to be adduced. For twentieth or twenty-first century historians to presume what might have been considered effeminate is all well and good, but many Latin writers were quite happy to speak their minds on such things.
- What I'm saying is:
- article does clearly reflect solid, current expert opinions and cites these
- it does summarize conclusions and arguments of quality available sources
- but I think it lacks a little in reproducing the primary source, textual evidence its excellent secondary sources must cite themselves
- I want to hear more of what the Romans themselves said! ;)
- Well, that's my personal bias in reading history. I'm sure you appreciate the point. Anything further you could provide from your sources along these lines would make this fellow history-hungry editor happy. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- More self-correction. I've done some research and I'm seeing that there's limited original text available, and what there is does seem rather focussed on Roman perceptions of sex and virtue. I've added some of the original Latin to the footnotes.
- I've split the equipment section into subsections, because there was quite a lot of material. It probably injures the dagger section, though I think it helps the others stand out. Personally, I think the equipment section should precede the "social commentary" section.
- It really is an outstanding article. I'll fiddle around a bit more (feel free to revert). Then I'll grab a set of criteria for Featured Article status, and write up how I see the article meeting those. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, Alastair; thanks so much for the thorough read-through! I'm glad you were able to answer most of your own questions. Yep, there's little we know of the retiarii from Roman writers. Rather, most of our knowledge comes from mosaics, graffiti, archaeological finds, and modern re-enactments and experiments. I appreciate your copy edit. I may change a few things back here and there, but for the most part, I think your edits look good. (Specifically, I'm uncomfortable adding subheadings that create one-paragraph sections. I like to think that a new paragraph in these situations is enough to signal the reader that we've changed topic.) Please do let me know if you have any further comments, perhaps on the article's talk page or on the peer review page. Thanks again! — Dulcem (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rollback
I looked at your contributions and I believe that when you have reverted edits, you have done so appropriately. So, I have added rollback rights to your account. Please note that rollback should be used only for blatant vandalism and does not leave a useful edit summary. I hope you find it useful, but if not, just ask and I will remove it. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Masks
- See Talk:Mask#What's going on?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Petit-Pays edit response
Hello,
Yes Petit-Pays is a living person and I don't have any sources to site. I am an avid fan of him and have followed him since I was a kid. I have a huge collection of his album and most of the writings are things I have learned of him over the years and from his lyrics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.133.193.80 (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Collaborating on articles and other things
I am deeply offended you ran off and did retiarius, leaving kobold and fairy ring to gather dust No serously, good work. I don't know if you have seen this but I found it one of the most helpful things for article wirting - User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ha ha! Don't worry; fairy ring is still in the works. As for kobold, I think I'll put it on the back burner for the time being as I await some books on order about European fairy beliefs. Retiarius seemed to be ready (I actually wrote it before kobold, I think), so I figured I'd see what happens at FAC. Thanks for the link; I'll check it out. :) — Dulcem (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] April DYK
|
On 3 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michael B. Leavitt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
[edit] DYK nomination
|
On 4 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bahá'í Faith in Cameroon, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
[edit] Award
 |
The Epic Barnstar | |
| To Dulcem, for fine work on getting Retiarius to Featured status. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC) |
[edit] Mssks
- See Talk:Mask#What's going on? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Maximian FAC
I've made the desired attributions. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copy-editing and stuff
Hi! This is a begging letter. At Milhist, we have a Logistics dept for article improvement purposes and we're always looking for copy-editors. It's not all blood and guts. Interested in signing up? You'd be very welcome, --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Gosh, thanks for the invitation. Unfortunately, I hardly have enough time to write articles, let alone copy edit a bunch of them by others. I'll gladly help out when something piques my interest, but I can't promise any sort of regular support, so I don't feel comfortable signing up. Sorry! — Dulcem (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- Very sensible :))) Absolutely no need to apologise. Maximian's been promoted, by the way. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk
[edit] Cameroon
Do you think this is not a good idea though that we bring out human rights as a section on its own? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goddymbuh (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I can see the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches. In the end, though, I think having a "human rights" section creates more problems than it solves. First of all, it ends up being a laundry list of all of the negative things human rights organizations have said about the country and then the denials of the government. The individual items have no real connection with one another other than being negative. Instead, I think it's much better to tie these criticisms in thematically with the parts of the article they relate to. Criticisms about healthcare belong in the "Health" section. Criticisms about lack of due process for those accused of crimes belong with other information about the government's relations with its citizens. So, in short, I think having a "Human rights" section creates problems with both the quality of the prose in the article and with maintaining a neutral point of view. I hope this explains my position! — Dulcem (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DYK for Samnite (gladiator type)
|
On 13 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samnite (gladiator type), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
[edit] Minstrel show
Just wondering what is your objection to the link you removed from Minstrel Show? Querulously, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to be an interesting link, but it doesn't seem to offer any information of broad interest to the topic at hand. I mean, tambourine juggling is an interesting phenomenon, but in all my reading on minstrelsy, it does not seem to have been that widespread. My guess is that it was some sort of gimmick of Primrose and West's troupe(s). Per our guidelines on external links, we have to try to keep articles from becoming "link farms" where any external link that is marginally related is included. I see the notability of this link as falling below the line needed for inclusion.
- What I would suggest instead is that the poster (which is assuredly public domain) be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and the image perhaps added to Primrose and West, our article about the duo depicted. I hope that explains why I removed the link. — Dulcem (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the policy, which I had not read before. The link could probably be better placed at Blackface, rather than simply deleting it. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Congratulations!
Just noticed Retiarius was featured! Woohoohoo! Well deserved outcome! Congratulations again Alastair Haines (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lou Holtz
I've taken the liberty of adding Lou Holtz to the blackface see also section (which I also re-ordered a trifle) as well as remove the "original research or unverified claims" template. Robert Greer (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I still think it's superfluous. We have an entire article on people who performed in blackface; should we include all of them in "see also"? Actually, that's probably the best solution. Why not move Holtz to List of entertainers known to have performed in blackface? — Dulcem (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DYK!
|
On 30 April 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article T. Allston Brown, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
[edit] Master Juba
No problem, and great work! I'm all done now, I think, so edit away. I do need to be getting to bed... Tuf-Kat (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Master Juba
Still opposing, sorry. See FAC page for a list of things. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar for Master Juba
 |
The Original Barnstar | |
| I award you, Dulcem, this barnstar for your hard work on the Master Juba article. Well done! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
- Much appreciated! And thanks for your helpful review in the FAC. — Dulcem (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New York Vauxhall Gardens
|
On 15 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New York Vauxhall Gardens, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
[edit] Master Juba
Congrats on the FA! I was researching for the article musical instrument today and ended up adding something about Jubal, considered to be the biblical inventor of the musical instrument. I wonder if there is any connection to our friend's choice of stage name? --Laser brain (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words! I was afraid it wouldn't make it at first, but I got lucky that other editors, like Jmabel, took an interest and helped clean things up. As for the Juba/Jubal similarity, you aren't the first to make that connection. Search "Jubal" on this page and you'll find that at least one 19th-century reviewer suggested it. Several sources also mention that the "juba dance", from which most sources say Juba took his name, included a step called the "Jubal Jew". Other that these, though, I can find no modern sources that suggest such a link, alas. — Dulcem (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Very sorry
Hi I have reverted my Dualla edits - I didn't realise it was a major African language but I see your Google Books refs. No insult to the Cameroon intended. Sarah777 (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- No problem! It's impossible for everyone to know about every part of the world, so it's a good thing we have a diverse user base here! :) — Dulcem (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] DOY guidelines
Hi - A while ago you commented at WT:DOY about the proposed guidelines. user:Grouf made some changes in response to your concerns and both this user and user:Mufka made some comments you haven't responded to. Does this mean you're OK with the current version (I'm suspecting not, but in this case I think you really should make an additional comment at WT:DOY). Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
