User talk:Doric Loon/Archive 2011

Archive 2005

←

Archive 2009

Archive 2010

Archive 2011

Archive 2012

Archive 2013

→

Archive 2015

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing!HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

your hebrew request

I'm very sorry to be responding so late. I left for a month-long trip to SE Asia at the end of December and just got back a few days ago, and didn't log on to WP while away. Are you still struggling with issues getting the text looking right? It looks like you might have resolved some of the problems. If not please let me know what still needs fixing and I'll be glad to help as best I can. Benwing (talk) 04:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Benwing. Actually, we have more or less sorted it. The only thing still worth looking at is that there is a much nicer Hebrew font (which I used at waw-consecutive which I can't seem to make work here, because the coding for the font clashes with the coding for the table. Maybe we have to settle for what we've got, but you have more experience, so do look at it. Thanks. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Alas, I've had little experience on getting specialized fonts working in tables (or in general), so I'm not really sure what to suggest. I did try just putting {{hebrew|}} around parts of the relevant text in Dukus Horant in the table and it seemed to work. (To the extent I could get the stuff edited at all, that is ... RTL handling in Firefox on the Mac must be broken or something. The text kept getting moved around to places other than where I tried to put it; enormously frustrating.) Benwing (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EMC cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EMC cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

AFD for Medieval Chronicle Society

Hi, Doric. Sorry about the delay, I had gone to Disneyland. =^_^=

To not, the discussion has been closed for no consensus, so this comes a bit tardy, but perhaps there is room for improvement. My advice would be to make doubly sure that the language of the article is not at all promotional, and definitely to demonstrate notability. The link is in the discussion, I think.

This said, the keep arguments were not terribly convincing - what I saw seemed to say "prove it isn't notable". Though, I did like the suggestion to basically ignore the rules, and I am willing to do that for a time, contingent upon the resources we need are added - or if somehow notability can be demonstrated.

Let me know if you have other questions.

--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Dark Ages

Thanks for your interest in Dark Ages. I am no expert in the matter, but the idea of a warning is a good idea. Especially so since so many pages were linked to the disambiguation page or Dark Ages when they probably intended another article. What I suggest you do is add some more explanatory text to the top of Dark Ages to achieve your intention of the alert to the variety of meanings and dispute. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

CSB Linguistics list

I've been working on updating the task list for the Countering Systemic Bias project. I noticed you'd contributed to the Linguistics section of the task list. Would you be willing to take a look at the articles and see how they're faring & see if any have improved? I've been working my way through the other sections and updating the notes or moving articles that have progressed but I'm really at a loss when it comes to the linguistics articles. Thanks. Cloveapple (talk) 01:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Indo-European copula - Gaelic languages

Hi Doric Loon. I have recently been editing the Indo-European copula page. You included a sentence stating that the copula in Gaelic languages can be interpreted as part of the verb bí. As an Irish speaker, I know that, at least in the case of the modern Irish language, this is incorrect. Would it be possible to provide me with a scan of or link to the relevant pages of the source please if convenient? I am concerned that your contribution only applies to Scottish Gaelic. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rryswny (talk • contribs) 22:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have scanning facilities here but I you may well be right that it only applies to Scottish Gaelic. It is really a question of analysis. These verbs are suppletive anyway, so you don't expect different parts of the same verb to be etymologically related; so if is and tha have a complimentary distribution and together do what in other languages would be done by one verb, it's hard to see a reason why they cannot be conceived as aspectually related parts of a single paradigm. It seems to me that that is true of Irish too, but as far as I know it is only in Scots Gaelic that some (a minority of) analysts look at it this way. I think when you say it is incorrect in Irish, you mean that this is not the accepted analysis, and not that it is an impossible analysis. But I don't speak Irish, so if you have a reason why it is completely impossible to conceptualize it this way, I would be interested to learn about it.--Doric Loon (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for your quick response. While it is certainly not the accepted analysis in Irish, I think it may be impossible also. The best reason I can put forward is that a different set of personal pronouns are used with the Irish copula.Rryswny (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's a minority view in Scotland, too, so edit as you see fit. Maybe move the whole thing into the footnote and just say that this author has suggested this analysis for Scots Gaelic. --Doric Loon (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I did that just now.Rryswny (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The Scottish Gaelic task force needs you!

JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 22:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

agree to the merge

I have enlarged the article Jean de Venette and would agree to the merge of the Chronicle article with Jean de Venette. The opposite would not be practicable because it mentions not only his Chronicle but his life and motivation. Opinion? Can we merge it or do we need more approval. Does not seem to be much action on either except our recent contributions. Mugginsx (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the merge - go ahead. The suggestion to merge has been up there for ten months and nobody has objected. Besides, there really is no call for separate articles on the author and on the work.

However, there is a different problem here. There were two different Jean de Venettes, one who wrote a chronicle and the other who wrote a romance, and the main article which you have worked on seems to muddle them. Let me cite the first paragraph of Régis Rech, "Jean de Venette", in Encyclopedia of the Medieval Chronicle, Brill 2010, p. 912.

ca 1307-70. France. Author of a Latin history of the mid-14th century. A Carmelite from the village of Venette near Compiègne who usually lived in Paris in the Carmelite house of the Place Maubert. He spent two years (1354 and 1386) in Reims. Almost certainly a different person from the Carmelite Jean de Venette who in 1357 wrote a huge poem of some 40,000 lines in French entitled Les Trois Maries.

Sorry if that throws a spanner in your works. I notice he only says "almost certainly" so you would be at liberty to deal with them in the same article and just note the alernative view, but Rech is pretty recent and if he represents latest scholarship then maybe you do need two articles. Right now I don't have more time to work on this, so I'll leave it for you to decide what to do. Good luck. --Doric Loon (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not take offence, I'll take into account everything you said, but my immediate thought is, I am sorry I asked. . I tried to move it and was unsuccessful. I do have the 1953 book and will continue to read it and follow the sources it claims as well and the others. This looks like it is not going to be as easy as I thought. Mugginsx (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that, indeed. I find it a very common situation with anything scholarly - I think there is a nice little job I can just do quickly and a box of worms opens up! Do read the rest of the Rech article. I will mail it to you using the e-mail account you have registered on Wiki. Tell me if you can't get it that way. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I received the information and will read it and thank you for sharing your knowledge with me. Mugginsx (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Doric Loon. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Two different Jean de Venettes

I must tell you that after reading and re-reading all of the information you sent to me (the manuscripts are breathtaking by the way) that I simply cannot believe Regis Rech that there were two different Jean de Venettes who:

both have the same name (even taking into account the way names were created in medieval times);

both born in Venette;

both monks or friars;

both Carmelite monks or friars;

both were literate at a time when not all monks were literate (since de Venette himself aspires to make his fellow monks literate);

both were referred to as fillons or chroniclers;

both used the Latin of a peasant - see Birdsall, et al., preface to chronicle p.2, "His Latin is the Latin of a French peasant must often be turned back to French in which he is thinking ..." and also Régis Rech observations: "The style is sober and clipped with no digressions, but contains many Gallicisms"; - no matter the language, it is peasant in tone.

both lived in the same century;

both lived in the same country in that century;

and both lived at the same time in that century.

It simply defies logic. With all due respect to the fact that you have expressed that you do not work on French manuscripts, I wonder if you would consider these facts above, and add to it the fact that there is no proof to the claim presented by Regis Rech, and agree with me that they could not have been two different persons. It seems to me that the odds would be astronomical for that proposition. The only other question left is that did the same man write the poem" "The Three Marys (or Maries) and I say, why not? Since according to your scholarly source, the poem is still unpublished, http://translate.google.fr/translate?hl=fr&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.pecia.fr%2F , I do not know how to resolve that question, and do not see that Rech does either. Until someone can, it seems to me, it is pure speculation.

I am therefore not going to attempt to put that phrase in that "they were almost certainly two different persons". If you decide to go forward with it, I will, of course, not object and will defer to your education and judgment on these matters. But Dr., surely you know that there is enough disagreement on medieval subjects that if all were presented in every article, they would make that article in Wiki look like a compilation of contradictions and, would make it unreadable. Therefore, with that in mind, and also due to the fact that no proof is presented that I can see to the claim, and the fact that there is comparatively little known about this man to make such a conclusion, I remain skeptical they were two different persons. With respect, Mugginsx (talk) 11:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Doric Loon. You have new messages at Mugginsx's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If I am incorrect as to any or all of my conclusions, please do not hesitate to tell me. I do want to learn all that I can of Jean de Venette. Thankyou. Mugginsx (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you present the argument so convincingly that I think you may well be right. Whenever there is a scholarly controversy like this, we all have to work out for ourselves what we think of it, so don't be shy about standing by your conclusions. Since Rech is so recent, I still sort of think the article should say somewhere (if only in a footnote) that the two-Jeans theory is held by some scholars. But Rech doesn't give reasons, so one is thrown back on older scholarship for an explanation. But I certainly would not support leading with the assumption of two authors: one makes sense. It reminds me a little of Rudolf von Ems, a great all-rounder in courtly literature, who also wrote a chronicle. Keep up the good work - the article is looking better by the day. --Doric Loon (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You are extremely kind to say so. I will do my best. Thank you so much. I have added a Note to the section on The Three Maries, or Marys as you suggested. Please feel free to re-word or re-place, if you so choose. Mugginsx (talk) 11:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Czechia (single name of the Czech Rep.)

Hello Doric! I appreciate your reasonable compromise in this difficult (and difficultly understandable) matter. Could you once more visit this discussion and to react on me, please? --Iaroslavvs (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I would support this in a poll. I'm not sure a poll would have much chance of success, though, counting the pros and cons further up the discussion. But I am (almost) always for tolerance. --Doric Loon (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)