User talk:Mattbarton.exe

Welcome!

Hello, Mattbarton.exe, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

TheRingess 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric entries

Hi Mattbarton, welcome from me too. I very much regret that your idea of a List of rhetorical terms has been met with some negative responses and got nominated for deletion. Please don't let that discourage you; I, for one, find the idea very useful. I've made a few more sample entries to show the other users the potential of this list. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt, to my dismay I see that the deletion vote page has got more "delete" votes in the meantime. That's really a shame. Maybe it would be good if you left a short note there stating what you want to do with that list and how you plan to expand it? BTW, as for "glossary" vs. "list", I personally have no strong preference, but I agree that both types of page title are quite common, and there are several "Lists of terms of [Science XYZ]" too. Lukas ^(T.|@) 17:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Matt, I'm sorry if that the fact I've nominated this has made you feel as if I'm been negative. All I was doing was putting the article for discussion about it's possible deletion. As the list has been expanded, the AfD is turning to your favour. And may I take this opportunity to welcome you, and your class, to the Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I've upset you. Compu te r Jo e 17:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia used in teaching?

Hi, I just noticed you mentioned using Wikipedia for a classroom project at university. Interesting idea - in fact, I had toyed with a similar thought once too (I teach English linguistics at a German university). Would be interested in seeing what happens! Lukas ^(T.|@) 11:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listification of glossary of rhetorical terms

I checked on what you said, and it seems like there are other glossaries on Wikipedia.

However, I think rhetorical terms deserve to be a list, not a glossary. Many things you are likely to put in have, or are likely to have in the future if they don't already, separate articles (euphemism, chiasmus etc.). This seems to me to be the function of list pages.

Glossaries, on the other hand, are for terms used in articles about a certain subject, the vast majority of which would never rate articles of their own because they could never be more than dicdefs — Glossary of climbing terms, Glossary of American football (In a perfect world, we could make every link on a glossary page a wiktionary link, but we need more active contributing to wiktionary than we're currently getting).

That's just my definition. I note that not all the pages under the abovelinked glossary list are themselves entitled "glossary of ..."; some of them are lists and some of them aren't at all. Again, we should apply wikipedia naming conventions more uniformly than we do; but I can't do as much as I would like to change that because we're not sure yet what those conventions are.

Now that you've heard me out, feel free to move it back to glossary if you want. I'm not going to make a huge issue out of this; I have other things to do. I just gave you my argument and if you accept it, fine. If not, also fine.

BTW, for your rhetoric portal or project you might want to take a look at James Joyce's Ulysses, particularly the seventh chapter, which is linked to the art of rhetoric and thus Joyce made a point of putting as many rhetorical devices in it as possible, to the point that at least two books have appendices demonstrating all the rhetorical devices and one critic wrote that that chapter could practically be a rhetoric textbook itself. Daniel Case 16:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts, now that I've gone and made a few additions to the list myself: What you want to do is, in fact, basically my argument for calling it a list: everything links elsewhere, and in elsewhere you can elaborate on the short definition at the list page with examples and some history, some thought behind it from Quintilian or whoever. I feel it's a list because a fair amount of these terms are used outside of rhetoric (in literary criticism for instance) and thus they aren't limited to within their native field (And that makes a good argument for list of literary terms, which we don't yet have, I think).

BTW, I added my voice in support of keeping the list over at AfD — I am, as my user page notes, a deletionist and thus no stranger to AfD where you can see a lot of crap come across the transom if you're so inclined; so if I say "Strong Keep" it will be considered with some seriousness. I think the way things are going it will be kept (You can go over there and defend the article, too, if you haven't already ... I haven't seen your sig). Daniel Case 17:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link in the AfD box at the top of the page. Daniel Case 17:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I didn't realize you had moved the article again. This is a little tricky when it's got an ongoing deletion vote, as it can result in orphaning the discussion of the moved article (which it did); see here. I'll try to fix it. Daniel Case 17:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed. And let me congratulate you on the way you've handled this so far. Daniel Case 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amplification

I was checking back on the list later today and saw "amplification" added so I checked the link. I saw you had added text on rhetoric to the bottom of the disambiguation page, so I used it to create a new article.

To avoid doing this in the future, add a short description of the term to the disambig page, including a link to the new article you intend to create afterwards. Save the edit, then click on the redlink you want and edit away.

I really like what's shaping up (I remember a year ago when I was new, too, and how confusing things seemed (I didn't understand how to add categories for a while). Hope your students are getting encouraged! Daniel Case 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Matt, I saw you posted a link to your review in the Dungeon Master article. While I'm not sure the link is appropriate, and someone may well decide to remove it, I thought your article you linked to was well written. So my request is this: would you mind working on expanding the Dungeon Master article? It is slated for inclusion in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 version that will be distributed via DVD, but the current article is just a start to what should be there. I would edit it myself, but I have a bit of a conflict of interest, although I would be happy to assist in answering any questions. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 01:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of my request is that while the article needs to be improved, I should not be the one doing it. I shouldn't be making decisions on how to present my own work. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see. So you're the genius responsible for this amazing game! I'd like to edit the piece for you, but it might be a few days before I can get around to it. At any rate, I hope no one removes my link afterwards.

I appreciate that! No rush, it's languished in its current form for a while. —Doug Bell ^talk 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like someone removed my link, calling it "link spam." Sigh. I hate to say it, but I see little reason to help out a group that doesn't intend to reciprocate.

Sorry you feel that way. The issue is that the link you provided didn't provide any supporting information about the article. A review might be referenced (see WP:REF), but is unlikely to survive as an external link. Thanks for the consideration though. —Doug Bell ^talk 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just confused here. Are you saying that I should cite my own article as evidence to support the Wikipedia page? I was under the impression that the links section was functioning like a bibliography or "see also" section. At any rate, I don't understand the objection to the link. I didn't even know about this function until I noticed that people were linking to my other articles via Wikipedia. Some of them even copied my structure. See [1]

Well, no, not exactly. Using your own external article as a reference creates a similar, tho' lesser, conflict of interest to what I would have editing it. I would not suggest overly referencing your review in any revision to the article, however, it is acceptable to make a reference or two to your article to support some outside opinion on the article—it would probably be good to include other similar references besides your own work. It may seem somewhat odd, but Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources—the analysis in your review would be a secondary source, assuming you have an area of expertise in evaluating classic computer games, which I think it not an unreasonable view. —Doug Bell ^talk 05:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questron

Hi Mattbarton.exe, your edit to this article spurred me to do a little more work on it, so thanks. :) Robotman1974 10:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Portal:Rhetoric

Portal:Rhetoric, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Rhetoric and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Rhetoric during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]