User talk:Ojevindlang

Hey! Just noticed your recent work on the Bard and wanted to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare. Just add your name to the member's list. Basically what we do is try to improve any and all articles having to do with Shakespeare. Wrad 04:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shakespeare Project has begun a collaboration to bring its main article, William Shakespeare, to FA status. If you wish to contribute, please review the to-do list on its talk page. Let's make this article an FA! Wrad 15:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shakespeare Wikiproject is starting another collaboration to bring Romeo and Juliet to GA status. Our last collaboration on William Shakespeare is still in progress, but in the copyedit stage. If you have strong copyedit skills, you may wish to continue the work on that article. Members with skills in other areas are now moving on. Improving Romeo and Juliet article will set a standard for all other Shakespeare plays, so we look forward to seeing everyone there. Thanks for all your help with the project. Wrad 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ojevind. I noticed your edits to some of the Tolkien articles. Have you come across Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth yet? It's an attempt to organise Tolkien and Middle-earth related content on Wikipedia. It goes through varying levels of activity. If you want more background, have a look through the talk page archives and see what you think. There is also a welcome template around somewhere with standard link to look at, of that might help - not sure how much experience you have of Wikipedia. I'll pop that standard welcome message below. Carcharoth 22:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Ojevindlang, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

I'd forgotten how impersonal templates like that can be, so I'm going to add a personal note. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them, though from the look of your contributions so far, you are doing fine. Carcharoth 22:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I seem to have messed up something now, though; I'll try to restore it.

Oops! I referred to something I goofed up with in the article about Creatures in Narnia (now amended). I'll go read the talk page archives now.

Hi, glad to see another project member, Just a question:

Edith Tolkien says this:

By 1908 Edith, a talented pianist had become an orphan. She first met Tolkien in that year, when he and his younger brother Hilary Arthur Reuel Tolkien were moved into the same boarding house.

Does this mean the future couple shared the same boarding house? I think it does. (I don't have a personal copy of any of Tolkien's biographies, so just correct me if I'm wrong.) If Tolkien and his brother lived together but separate from Edith, mentioning the brothers' living arrangements at all would be superflous to the article. I'm expanding Tolkien family by condensing some info from the individual pages. More input on Tolkien's mother would also be welcome. (Ironically it's his father who gets a whole article, when he probably influenced him very little.) Uthanc 14:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! :) Yes, they shared the same boarding house. If I recall correctly, Edith lived in the room above Tolkien's. I can look it up for you if you need more details.

The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Next Collaboration to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 04:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who called Jacob Epstein "greasy"? He or J. R. R. Tolkien? It's not clear. Uthanc (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the letter (Nr 83), Tolkien writes "greasy Epstein", so *he* did at least. Ojevindlang (talk)

Is that an ethnic slur, or an individual assessment? Probably the latter, as evidenced by his other comments elsewhere. Uthanc (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I can't say for certain which it is, but the words "greasy" and "Jew" do tend to turn up together in anti-Semitic parlance... Ojevindlang (talk)

Since you're posting a large list of possible inaccuracies, it would be prudent to list your references for such criticism. Otherwise, people (including myself) will view your edits as original work and thus subject to removal. Dyl (talk) 05:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every "claim" I make is easily ascertainable fact. Consult any standard work of reference. Furthermore, I take it you noticed that my criticism of Weatherford's account of William of Ruysbroek's travel narrative is based on the fact that Weatherford's account is not supported by the narrative in question - which I have read. It's on my bookshelf right now. Ojevindlang (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I'll list references, though it feels a bit like finding support for the claim that 2 + 2 equal four. Ojevindlang (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion going on regarding the project's policy on how information on characters should be represented in articles on Shakespeare's plays. Please take part by clicking Talk:Romeo and Juliet#Character Analysis. Further context, if needed, can be found by scanning the two previous talk sections on the page as well. Sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 04:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC) per request of Wrad (talk)[reply]

It seems you bought the Pearce biography and have a changed opinion of Campbell? TuckerResearch (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not changed my opinion of him. A fascist, and a bad poet to boot. Still, everybody should get an opportunity to decide for themselves - don't you agree?Ojevindlang (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll say average poet with some flashes of brilliance, Francoist, arch-Catholic. I do think your latest changes are much more neutral than they were a few months ago. Did you read the Pearce book? It seems your latest references come from it. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some came from Pearce's book, some from The Dictionary of National Biography, which is extremely reliable (and the entry was written by someone who was on friendly terms with Campbell), and I also found some information in other places. I don't suppose we'll ever agree about the quality of Campbell's poetry.

Please can you explain why you find it necessary to add editorial comments - decades later - to the original testimony of people who actually knew Orwell. You appear to be qualifying them to accord with some personal point of view of yours which is not made clear. Regards Motmit (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite simple. Wikipedia articles are intended to supply swift, unambiguous information. How many people do you think actually go down to the list of references and find out that Heppenstall's account is somewhat dubious since it was written and published years later?

The argument that something is dubious because it was written down after the event is completely false. If you dismiss information because it was written down after the event, you dismiss all the historical information in Wikipedia. In Orwell's case, nearly everything said about him was written years later. Much of this has to do with the deliberate suppression of biographies in accordance with his will. The first official biography of Orwell by Crick was published in 1980 and even Stansky and Abrahams was only written in 1972. Many accounts have only come to light after these biographies were written.

Heppenstall wrote The Shooting Stick incident in 1955 which makes it one of the earliest independent accounts of Orwell by someone who actually knew him before he was famous. Equally, therefore, this could be stated in the article to suggest that it is more reliable. That is why POV editing is frowned upon and we leave things neutral and let the intellingent reader make up his/her own mind. You consider Heppenstall's account as dubious, but there is independent corroboration of it by Miriam Fierz who saw him the day after.

I would add that some of your editorialising has been inaccurate. Your interpretation of the shooting stick incident was different from the verbatim account given in Crick, and you referred to one interview as being conducted in the nineties when it was first published by Crick in 1980. Regards Motmit (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1955 is a long time afterwards, many years afterwards. As you no doubt know, even reports that are just a few weeks old are generally extremely unreliable. Besides, Heppenstall was not exactly an impartial witness to the event. And how can Miriam Fierz corroborate Heppenstall's account of the episode when she wasn't present at the scene? No one has ever denied that Orwell beat up Heppenstall with a shooting stick.

I've replied at my talk page and left a comment at the article talk page. Please follow the advice I left there and don't revert edits even if you are right. Once someone else turns up with a copy of that book, it should be easy to sort out the dispute. Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you'd have got the page wrong - I was just surprised the pagination was exactly the same in two different editions, given the Amazon one was a US hardback. I've reinstated the second and am doing a little digging on the German source as I type... Shimgray | talk | 23:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ojevindlang,

I read carefully your last recent edits about Sweden Democrats (Family Policy & Immigration Policy). I am agree with all of them. Since I am French, English is not my natural language even if I am able to understand the written articles. I learnt english at shool and I always use a dictionary to find out the most appropriate word before to write a sentence. So the expression « a polemic burst immediately » is too french. About muslims and homosexuality, this topic is complicated. For exemple in France, muslims people refuse generally homosexuality about some specific laws even if they are not hostile to homosexuals. Are you Swede or Danish ? In Denmark, Danish People's Party is giving since 2001 its parliamentary support in the Folketinget for Liberal-Conservativ government. During the next general elections in Sweden on 19^th September 2010, the Sweden Democrats will probably get some seats in the Parliament (Riksdag). There are 349 seats in the monocameral swedish Parliament : since the last elections on 17^th September 2006, Alliance for Sweden leaded by Fredrik Reinfeldt have 178 seats and the Red-greens coalition (rödgröna) leaded by Mona Sahlin have 171 seats. From now, it is difficult to predict but maybe SD's four or five seats will be determining for Alliance for Sweden leaded by the incumbert Prime Minister. In that case, we will assist to a similar political situation like in Denmark : Alliance for Sweden would be supported in the Parliament by the Sweden Democrats MP, who will certainly demand in return for a tightening of immigration policies. Jeromemoreno (talk)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]