User talk:Solemnavalanche

Welcome!

Hello, Solemnavalanche, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Oven Fresh 18:58, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Weasel words

What a pleasure it was to see your comment on the "weasel words" rule. Thanks for adding it! --ESP 01:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fashionable Nonsense

I've left this message because I noticed you engaging in a discussion with users who are attempting to spread popularization of the viewpoint stated in Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's book Fashionable Nonsense and related events. I've begun an attempt to create a repository that will attempt to, ultimately, remove this misinformed position from an ideally-neutral Wikipedia, except to acknowledge the viewpoint in its own context.

This attempt isn't going so well, so I'm contacting people like you whom I've seen discussing the topic earlier than I've intended. See both the intended meta-article and its discussion page for details.

Fashionable Nonsense is not a scholarly work

If you're interested in contributing in any way, please feel free to do so. If not, thank you for your other contributions to Wikipedia.

VermillionBird 00:54, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

Metaliest Metal of all Metals

I just wanted to announce, embarrassedly, that I was very nearly taken in by a bit of vandalism claiming that kevlar is metal. If the vandal hadn't later added "it is the metaliest metal of all metals," I would have been going around thinking, oh, there's some technical definition of metal that doesn't necessarily apply just to what we normally call metal -- it's like "Lewis Acid."

I now recognize it as a particularly hilarious example of vandalism. It's in the history of Aramid for anyone interested. (Kevlar was also vandalized.) Solemnavalanche 16:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Richardson

I saw your comments and I went ahead and edited The History of Sir Charles Grandison. I own quite a few books on Richardson (9), and I've been meaning to update his biography. I hope the changes fix the problems that were pointed out. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the publication history that was the original claim, which has been proven wrong as of recently. :) I can review the source again to make sure its the right one that I'm thinking of. There was a dispute over the actual dates during the early years, but some recent letters that were found cleared it up. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't realize that the publication history had been folded into another section. Recent letters? Could you tell me more about them? I take it they aren't in The Selected Letters, or in the Barbauld edition of letters? I'm researching the Dublin piracy, and would be interested in reading any and all details about the case. I ask because the source you cite in the publication history you give (Dobson, Austin) is very old (1902) and doesn't cite its sources for those dates. I take it there's another more recent source? Or is this material in the notes to the reprinted edition that you're using?

I think I accidentally removed the Sale reference entries for the double reference. Sale p. 26, and pp. 251-252 refer to his apprentices and the ornaments used to determine which prints were printed when. Then there are the individual printing dates on p. 197 in the catalog of printed items and dates. And I believe the letter was Johnson to someone else, not from Richardson. I'd have to look it up. Other letters with dates - Richardson to Miss Talbot 21 September 1753 details the "preview" edition that he made for her. I'll have to go through my books. My notes are a mess after updating the Richardson biography. Now, I have to note that there were three editions produced by the end of the 1754, the first being 7 volumes, the second being 6, and the third being seven. By the way, was is your source for the dates? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - your note here says "first four volumes duodecimo and octavo simultaneously on 13 November 1753" which is exactly what the current page says. Was there a different date that you were referring to? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might appreciate this - the final book that Samuel Richardson printed before his death was William Weston's New dialogues of the dead. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right -- November 13, 1753 is definitely correct. I thought you had removed the publication history entirely at first -- my mistake. My original primary evidence was in a letter to Lady Bradshaigh, dated 12 Nov. 1753: "Sir Charles having been promised to the Public by Tomorrow, he has too much Honour to disappoint it" (Selected Letters 247). But that doesn't specify how many volumes. A footnote in the Selected Letters specifies how many volumes (on p. 243) but doesn't cite a source.

Then, the Dobson -- it specifies the number of volumes and cites a primary source, but then it says that two volumes follow in December, and the last in March. I can't tell if those were _also_ announced in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ or if he neglected to mention his source. Anyway, this is almost venturing into the realm of original research -- but since I am in fact doing original research, I'm interested in the question. I think the article is fine as is, at this point. Thanks, though, for your helpful responses! Solemnavalanche (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Menippeah

Hello, I noticed you proposed the above article for deletion but you didn't provide a reason why. Could you please amend the prod and add a reason. Thank you. Rotten regard (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RR, Actually I tried to but I guess I've misunderstood something. I entered a reason in the template code after the | symbol. But I see now that that didn't work as I expected. I'm not familiar with the way these templates work; sorry! I'll reinsert the reason. Solemnavalanche (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see such a well argued reason. Rotten regard (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]