User talk:Dellaroux

General Note to All

I'm not a computer whiz kid, I'm an historian, and I don't really appreciate the snarky, geekier-than-thou attitude people here seem to have about making corrections (information is much more useful than snide comments).

So, I've stopped using this handle and just put in corrections where I can from whatever computer I'm using. If someone values the information, they can figure out how to enter the sources themselves. If not, fine, revert it, but don't come crowing back to me about it.

If there were a stable, consistent, logically organized instruction page for the basic stuff that didn't take years to read and understand, I'd re-consider. And if it could be found quickly and used easily without having to take twice as long when one is usually in the midst of researching or writing about something else (and often under deadline) I would bother with it.

If folks wrote to request sources first and offered help in inserting them, instead of just reverting them, that might also be useful, but that doesn't seem to happen either. (Believe me, I don't insert anything I don't know the sources for, but the footnoting function appears to be so arcane as to be unworthy of the trouble to learn it, as far as I can tell.)

Silly students who insert their own papers into the mix to get a citation out of it can have the project. Since form seems to have trumped content in this community, I'm slipping off to anonymity-land.

No serious academic accepts W'pedia as a citation source anyway, so I'd say it's doomed. What we really need is another revision of the late great 1976 Ency. Brit. but that's not going to happen, either.

Ta!

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Gookin

Nice work on the Gookin corrections. it would be great if you could take a photo of the tomb on one of your tours - the article could use an illustration.... - Nunh-huh 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Maverick

Yes, I agree with most of your points. There are sources on Maverick, and on his relationship with the Plymouth Company, Gorges, etc. I haven't had time to do anything with this entry but it is on my radar screen. I will try to get to it at some point if you don't beat me to it. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Missionary

Hi! Thanks for your addition to the missionary article in providing balanced criticism. Unfortunately I've had to remove it until sources are provided. Also, note that there were a few typos and the criticism you provided specifically addressed the evangelisation/conversion component of missionary work, not the other components such as schools/hospitals/social justice. To my knowledge this (ministry of the word) is the primary area of criticism/disdain for missionaries. In addition, I've seen responses to this criticism as being anti-religious since ministry of the word is often no different to political campaigning (or conversation as you wrote). Take care Utopial (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully you have time because you'll probably do a better job of it than me. Dana Robert looks like a great source. There also should be some associated with Georgetown Uni - at least the jesuits missionaries i worked with in brazil were.Utopial (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Trinity Church

Thanks for pointing out the map error. Did not know about Page's unreliability as a cartographer of Boston-- appreciate the info. M2545 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Pantomime

With some regret, I've deleted your new section (a panto by any other name). We may be able to get something back in pointing out the aspects that panto and melodrama have in common (very perceptive of you to point these out) - but I don't think we could justify the idea that the two forms are necessarily closely linked - "panto-like" conventions were much too pervasive in 19th century popular theatre. Anyway, bold new ideas like this need references to be inserted into Wikipedia really. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and no, it wasn't your reversion that I was frustrated with. Clearly this whole set-up is far too complex and picky and I don't have time to do the ramp-up necessary to make things work in it. I was irritated with a different individual, who seemed to be losing the forest (facts that needed correcting) for the trees (how it was done, or didn't work after it was done, because of the picky details about the way the links are supposed to work.) The person fussing about that really does not know what they're talking about in contentual terms, which was what I was addressing.

Had it been I in their shoes, I'd have offered some instruction in the process, maybe, or indicated where in thunder the instructions are hidden (it's not like I hadn't looked for them--far from transparent) and considered content (which is where I would say they're incorrect) separately. But it's really not worth it...I basically stopped by to see if I had any further notes on anything else.

I should say, though, that in re: the panto issue, with most of the dance and theater history I'm familiar with, (and have published in, just not on that topic) it's adequate to point out parallels and to indicate a probability of a relationship and make it clear that the similarity is all that is being pointed to, no claim of derivation is necessarily being made--in fact, most of what I've published in the "real world" is quite insistent on not confusing evidence with proof (which is maybe the other side of this...all the foolish fussing about setup is going to make individuals with any actual background in the matter just give up). Some things can't be footnoted because they haven't been said by anyone else before, and that's the point...As you kindly acknowledged, it might be a bold idea, but that might also mean that direct citations backing it up won't exist--although when my debutante students make arguments like this, I quickly rebut them...but they haven't been working in the field for decades, either.)

Anyway, I've got actual stuff to write so I need to get on with that. I thought I could make a contribution here but it looks like it's not worth the learning curve. Thanks for listening.Dellaroux (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My revert of your edit of Le jongleur de Notre-Dame

Before entering links, it might be a good idea to acquaint yourself with the way this is done correctly, or at least check if the link is working correctly before finalising your edit. Regards, --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As an afterthought: before accusing an editor of not knowing what they are doing/talking about, it might be useful to check out that editor's contributions .--Francesco Malipiero (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your posts. I did in fact check out your contributions. You might know how to do the tricky link stuff, but the facts were what I was referring to, and your work (in opera, I believe) does not cover the material (in medieval texts) that I was correcting. The content was what I was concerned with, and since (as I just noted above) the instructions for setup in this format are so hard to find and the procedures so arcane if you're unfamiliar with them, knowing all about that is a procedural quibble, not a contentual one. Also, our teaching styles seem to be a bit different, I'd probably learn better from someone else if I were going to bother with this further.

Just another reason why instructors don't want their students citing this stuff.Dellaroux (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You're invited! New England Wikimedia General Meeting

	New England Wikimedia General Meeting
	The New England Wikimedia General Meeting will be a large-scale meetup of all Wikimedians (and friends) from the New England area in order to discuss regional coordination and possible formalization of our community (i.e., a chapter). Come hang out with other Wikimedians, learn more about ongoing activities, and help plan for the future! Potential topics: What is a Wikimedia chapter and should we work towards one? Planning of regular Boston meetups (any other New England cities?) Planning for upcoming coordinated events (Wikipedia Love Libraries, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiknic, etc.) Outreach to universities (WikiProject Academical Village) and cultural institutions (GLAM) Wikimania DC is this summer. Your ideas!
	Sunday, April 22 1:30 PM – 4:30 PM	Conference Room C06, Johnson Building, Boston Public Library—Central Library 700 Boylston St., Boston MA 02116
Please sign up here: Wikipedia:Meetup/New England!

---

Message delivered by Dominic at 09:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Note: You can remove your name from this meetup invite list here.

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)