User talk:Egonon/Archive1

Ego non (I'll not) is the end of a phrase on the door of Philipp von Boeselager's home, about the necessity of maintaining your personal own opinion and thought, also if all the people are on a common way different from yours. --Egonon (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir, I actually have very few objections to your additions, and they fade out in comparison to your good intentions - which, by the way, have resulted in a well-written, if undersourced, addition to what was already in there. As you have perhaps seen on my talk page, I had very little time at my disposal, so I chose to make some minor and perhaps urgent edits to the text. I'm sorry if I may have seemed hostile - in retrospect, I can understand how that came to be (I could not answer your queries in time, and my comments in the edit summaries etc may have appeared cranky), but I assure you that my main focus was on fixing a few problems, with the intent of elaborating and answering your post when I could spare some more time. That said, I should add that there is very little I know about Ungaretti (outside what the sources I used say), and that I came to the article after expanding Tristan Tzara, with the intention of connecting some detailed info to what was then a very short and rather inaccurate article. But please bear in mind that the info should be based on sources, which should preferably be cited profusely, and opinions need to be attributed and (preferably) cited one by one for our readers' benefit (this may explain why I chose to rephrase some of your contributions, based on what the sources indicate rather than what I or you can deduce - see also WP:NPOV.) Again, you are doing a very good job, but the article should strive for more in the future, if it is to comply with wikipedia standards.

(Note concerning the "edition" thing - I did not mean to emphasize that the edition was old, and I would not consider that a bad thing - the problem is that a book may go through several editions over a period, and the page number, publisher details, etc. may vary - providing just the title and the page number would make the reference unusable; it is precisely because I did not want the citation to risk being challenged or removed that I added the full details. Please feel free to ask my assistance in any technical difficulty you may encounter at any stage; I'll gladly oblige, but unfortunately I cannot do so promptly for the next week or so, given that I will be away on a trip.)

Best regards, Dahn (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Manibus date lilia plenis

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Manibus date lilia plenis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No encyclopedic content—belongs in Wikiquote, if anywhere.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Deor (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stat sua cuique dies

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Stat sua cuique dies, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No encyclopedic content—belongs in Wikiquote, if anywhere.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Deor (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Infandum regina iubes renovare dolorem

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Infandum regina iubes renovare dolorem, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

No encyclopedic content—belongs in Wikiquote, if anywhere.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Deor (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)