User talk:Sophysduckling/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Catullus 16

I completely disagree. If Every Rose Has Its Thorn is notable enough for its own article, Catullus 16 certainly is. I will defend it to the end. Billy Blythe 23:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm always looking for more excuses to include more Catullus. Someone who will die for a Wikipedia article strikes me as a good excuse. But do you think you can find enough material on the poem that isn't simple translation, and can you cite your sources for the introductory paragraphs (which are good)? And do you think you can spare time to put the translation into a table like that in Catullus 1? Please check out WikiProject:Catullus. Sophy's Duckling 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You've obviously been at this for a long time, and I'm viewed as a newcomer to whatever project this is. As someone who dislikes authority, having to join a project just to be able to write an article sounds silly, almost like forcing someone into a labour union or a political party. Look, I'd like to play nice. Really I want to cooperate however I can. I'm not interested in a squabble. I have degrees in classics and can obviously translate Latin and I know full well that common knowledge isn't something one has to cite. There's a lot of common knowledge about Catullus that doesn't need cited at all, because it's not in dispute. I'll leave you to do your work with your project. I'm a little upset, about how my contributions were handled, but I guess that's what happens when someone runs across someone else's project. I didn't realise that Wikipedians could be so territorial over an electronic database. Oh, well, I'll just shuffle off and find something else to do and hopefully not step on anyone's toes. Billy Blythe 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] While we're being honest...

Wikipedia is not a repository of original source material or original work in the form of translations. Scanning poetically an original source document does not make it an encyclopedia article. A short lead-in to a Latin original and a hack undergraduate translation does not make an encyclopedia article. Most of your Catullus articles have flaws that could very easily send them to AfD. As a classicist, I don't want to see that happen. I don't particularly like how you've formatted the poems or your awkward translationese. I'd rather see this stuff than lists of South Park Episodes, but that's about all I can say. You're breaking the rules with your wikiproject, and you know it, judging by your talk page archives. It looks like you're running with the attitude, "It's my way or the highway." So, I'll take the highway. Conversing with you has been a dreadful experience, comparable to eating cold gristle. You've made a mess of Catullus 16, so why don't you go clean up your mess and turn it back into the redirect it was before? Will that make you happy? I sure hope so, because I'm truly sick of this whole situation. Go away, go away, go away. Please. Just go away. Billy Blythe 05:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I must confses I think scanning a poem makes a better article than a red link would have. It's also not "my" wikiproject; I just happen to be the more active member of it at this moment. If you think the Catullus 16 article is a mess, I'd reccomend you boil your head for shame; that's your translation sitting there. Sophy's Duckling 06:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I think I need to respond to this in full. I'd rather just ignore what I haven't responded to, but Wiki doesn't need this coming back to bite Catullus in his dead arse while I'm off. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sophysduckling/Catullus_response for that. Sophy's Duckling 08:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just warned Alexwood for especially uncivil comments. I must say, following this up, that no one is entirely "clean" here. I don't know who first started being insulting, but it looks like Billy Blythe is not exactly being nice in wording criticisms. It also looks as if Sophy's Duckling has risen to the bait for at least a minute there (though that's all I can see from him or her). I'm sure you all mean the best for the project, and no one wants to take admin action against good users, so try to be nice to each other, or at least polite. Metamagician3000 14:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not involved in that particular dispute. But since you are here, I don't think your reaction to it is fair. User:Billy Blythe deserves a warning just as much as Alex Woods does: he gave as good as he got, and he followed up with a particularly impolite remark after Alex Woods said he would drop it. In any event, the comment that started this section should give you an unprovoked instance of an attack in blatant violation of at least three wikipedia behaviorial policies. Sophy's Duckling 07:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

While we're being honest...

   This implies I was being dishonest before (I wasn't) and that what I said amounted to some sort of personal attack. I think you'll find this to be an irrational position.

Wikipedia is not a repository of original source material

   It isn't. But you see, the articles are, or will be, much more than Latin words that have no meaning to English speakers.

or original work in the form of translations.

   I would contend translations are not original work, given the host of external precedent and commentary on Catullus's poetry. Also, translation does not fall under original research (as of the time of this writing). This dispute was resolved a week or so ago through Samael775's helpful suggestions.

Scanning poetically an original source document does not make it an encyclopedia article.

   No, it makes it an encyclopedia article stub. Cited commentary, notes, references, and external links make it more of an encyclopedia article. Please also note the unhelpful incivility of this address: if it is not an encyclopedia up to his standards, why does he not expand them to be more complete?

A short lead-in to a Latin original and a hack undergraduate translation does not make an encyclopedia article.

   This is a personal attack, in addition to betraying the fact ("Latin original," which the existing poems on wikipedia are most certainly not, no thanks to him) that he has not read the articles. Although I should not respond to personal attacks, I will say I am not an undergraduate, and that the translations I have made and corrected have been closely crossreferenced with the work of Bruce ARnold, Andrew Aronson, and Gilbert Lawall. Those poems not available in Love and Betrayal I have checked with other published translations as well as a Latin dictionary (Cassell's). These are not hacks, nor are they undergraduates, and I'd wager that they have far more prestige in their field than an anonymous graduate student on wikipedia has. Moreover, any second-year (it should be noted that it doesn't take a master's degree to translate catullus--I've been doing it since I was 12, or maybe 13, whenever I was in 7th grade) Latin student can check the translations I and others (he seems to forget people like Kenneth Charles, Imperio, and Silence) have done; they will tell you that on the whole, the translations on wikipedia are very good.

Most of your Catullus articles have flaws that could very easily send them to AfD.

   Note that he doesn't reference a single article, or bother to correct these supposedly glaring flaws on his own.

As a classicist, I don't want to see that happen.

   This is good to know; but why does he not correct these flaws to ensure that they don't?

I don't particularly like how you've formatted the poems or your awkward translationese.

   Note also no reference to a single article, no effort to discuss and create a better format (which has been marked as a beginning table time and again), etc. Also, the translations presently here are as literal as possible. In this respect, they mirror his own translation on Catullus 16.

I'd rather see this stuff than lists of South Park Episodes, but that's about all I can say.

   No, that isn't all he can say; he could be going and correcting flaws and expanding and talking, but he isn't.

You're breaking the rules with your wikiproject, and you know it, judging by your talk page archives.

   I don't think so. All disputes on my talk page archives were settled civilly and within the bounds of wikipedia policy.

It looks like you're running with the attitude, "It's my way or the highway." So, I'll take the highway.

   This is an extremely unfair portrayal of the situation. I told him about the Wikiproject Catullus and requested that he reformat his additions (which are good, so far as my dictionary and grammar can tell) so that they wouldn't be deleted. He replied somewhat uncivilly, and I thought he'd misunderstood me. So I posted to his talk page explaining the reasoning behind wanting a better format for artiles (ie, so they wouldn't get deleted). Then I noticed that he had flamed some other people, and was not assuming good faith/accusing me & Alexwoods of bullying (I think objective examination will declare that to be unfair--in both cases). So I once again pointed him in the direction of the format, this time posting the table on his talk page. I also warned him that he was in danger of violating several Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including 3RR. He responded with this. I think I maintained a civil tone throughout all of this.

Conversing with you has been a dreadful experience, comparable to eating cold gristle.

   I'd take issue with the first word. All through this, he has been responding over-defensively & rudely. There was no effort to "converse" on his side at all. The rest is personal attack; no need to respond.

You've made a mess of Catullus 16, so why don't you go clean up your mess and turn it back into the redirect it was before? Will that make you happy?

   I would like to point out that there is no mess at Catullus 16. I think he caught me in the middle of turning it from his setup into a table. It certainly did look like a mess, but he was impatient (it says on one of the wiki things--I think on the warning about editcountitis-- that some users don't change everything in one big edit) and he could have waited all of five minutes more before launching on his silly invective.

I sure hope so, because I'm truly sick of this whole situation.

   Wikistress is bad; I can sympathize with it.

Go away, go away, go away. Please. Just go away.

   Was this an effort at attempting to make me the "bad guy" or uncivil invader, or just absurdity? I'm too tired to decide.