User talk:Dominique Blanc/Archive 1

Thank you. I was surprised, but soon realised it was 'autoblock' - I run a security program operating on a proxy server. Am I now covered against this recurring? Or should I opt out of the program when dealing with WP? Regards --Dominique 11:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Love those Greeks!

Of course. I would also be interested in any data you may unearth on the actual practices the lovers engaged in. I have a suspicion surprises may be in store (for those with a strictly modern view of things). Haiduc 01:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

J King

Check the differences[1]: it left a number of URLs in the reference list unusable. Why that should be, I don't know, but it was simpler to revert than to try to pick things out, link by link. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

ISBN

I could not quite fathom why you deleted the ISBNs from the Greek pederasty article. Haiduc 01:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

You have sneakily vandalised article Pederasty in this edit [2]. You changed two cited urls to 404 not found urls, and also changed image names. This changes have been reverted. Please explain this edit. Thanks. Lara_bran 09:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As i notice in your talk, you do the same technique [3] with all articles. So it looks highly deliberate effort of vandalism to me. Please explain. Thanks. Lara_bran 10:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

And Lara bran has now posted you and me on WP:ANI as vandals, alleging a conspiracy. I have replied there, but thought you should be made aware. It is common courtesy here to inform editors when they have been put up for discussion on ANI, but Lara rarely troubles her or himself with common courtesy. Jeffpw 11:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Byron et al

I checked the edits of 9/30 and found it remarkable that no one is paying attention to the article. It looks like rank vandalism. While I am no Byron expert I will pay attention to the page henceforth. Haiduc (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek love deletion in progress

As the main contributor I wanted to inform you in good faith of my intention to have the article deleted, renamed or merged.

I had this extremely long and detailed explanation....and then hit the wrong button and poof.....everything was gone. So I will simply leave you with this;

After looking through the links, and references I came to realize that much of it was unacceptable to Wikipedia policy. I discovered, dead links, inappropriate citations (one I am not sure was a legal site), unverifiable information and the inappropriate use of OR to link Pederasty to the term.

In short it is my perception that the article is heavily over weighted with a slant towards defining the term "Greek love' as pedophilia.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek Love

Hi Dominique! There is a message for you here: Talk: Greek love#Committee for keeping Greek Love. Thanks. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that trolling "message" which is from this user that !voted to delete the related article. If you need, you can view it in the edit history but it's nonconstructive and quite uncivil. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately someone else he trolled actually restored it so feel free to go there and comment. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love AFD nomination withdrawn

I have begun work making fixes and finding new acceptable ways to keep even information just recently deleted by another editor. I have reformatted the reference section to include separate scholar, notes and bibliography from the references themselves. A new annotation tag to references or the placement in the note section will save a great deal of work and present it in an updated and contemporary way, preserve work and help organize the article so neutrality can be met even weight and allow as much information as possible with many options.

Citations work as before.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your courtesy in letting me know your decision, and I am interested to find that you seem genuinely interested in enhancing this article. Indeed you have already done much to improve things on the technical side, and I get the sense that you are open to discussion regarding the content, which of course makes for real progress. Unfortunately, my time is limited over the next few weeks, so I cannot engage immediately as I would wish. But provided that unnecessary drama and self-justification can be avoided, I can contribute my thinking (with scholarly support) as time permits.

Your FYI observations are sensible enough, though I believe it is dangerous to try to make an amalgam of literary or scholarly opinion. That is why I came up with the idea of simply presenting 'positions', rather than an overall summary, even if that means taking up more space. This however can be contained under specific headings as already planned out, so that controversies can be highlighted. The Dover summary was presented as being a useful reference table for general readers - WP does not at the moment provide a digestible overview of the Greek phenomenon - besides its function as a buffer for contrary opinion.

The title should be preserved (as discussed), but we should take care not to make it too inclusive. Davidson's rambling approach is interesting but is a clear example of 'amalgamation' as referred to above. And he has come under fire for this. But his position must be represented, like those of his contestants. The actual origin of the term is difficult to pin down, though Symonds' pronouncement must be retained. At one point I was investigating the French use of 'L'amour grecque' which may predate that. Perhaps an attempt at attribution of the 'coining' should be avoided in the opening paragraph.

The essential distinction between popular usage and historical reference is important, so that an emphasis on age-asymmetry is unavoidable. Whether or not this ambitious article will come up with a strictly impartial view is clearly up to the editors. --Dominique (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Off to with the family for the weekend. Will be returning to the article next week. Most important issue to me is the lack of accurate information of the overall subject of Greek homosexuality, but even scholars have difficulty with the subject due to the attitude of many in the early years of discovery.

The main reason I have not contributed to many ancient Greek articles is the link between most subject to Greek sexuality. The subject is far to complicated to treat in a single article. I have been aware of the group of small articles for a while and knew if I started it would become very time consuming. But I have learned techniques working on several Roman subjects that make the task of researching terribly obscure subjects and clearing out information from hundreds of years much easier. I do have sections in article that speak of scholarly research but find that entire sections that dissect individual work to much can also quickly loose site of the subject. A good deal of the Dover work could be used to expand his wiki page. At least he has one.--Amadscientist (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

History

Seems like a frivolous and irrelevant addition. Haiduc (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)