Talk:Calcidius/Archive 1

Calcidius

Current talk page

Archive 1

A smaller part of this article was published in Wikipedia in Spanish, with my authorization. But this is the full version, which I authorize for Citizendium. Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano 23:41, 5 March 2008 (CST)

A very good article, but -- and this is no criticism -- it needs to be translated into pure English prose. I will now give it a try. If I am uncertain as to an exact meaning of any particular point, I will leave the line(s) in question untouched. Also, if I inadvertently add to rather than subtract from the ambiguity, I apologize in advance.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 14:26, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Dear Mr Jeffrey Scott Bernstein:

I am very grateful for their criticisms, which are true, honest and constructive. As we explain to another respectable author, Mr. Todd Coles:

"Regard to article Calcidius, can you investigate and verify as there is no more complete article nor more extended in any other encyclopedia known nor even the most famous - and for pay - like Encarta, nor in the Catholic nor in the encyclopedias known of Philosophy. I led many months of investigation in order to make this article, and yet he had to leave to present a lot of data very interests that are the result of my own discoveries, because it gave my honor word to Mr Sargen, that was not going to use to expose any assumptions Citizendium or discovery that I have made but only to talk of others, and only on the findings of other authors...

I think the biggest help I need is in the spelling and syntax, as I am Spanish, and I do not have enough experience in the English language.

Therefore, you have every right to correct my articles to be more correct in the English language. In fact, it is an obligation that we have to have every citizen of Citizendium to help refine the draft, which has increasingly higher quality. And of course, I assure you, and any author or publisher, all my permission honest, and my full appreciation also for any help improve English prose in my articles. I'm sorry, because I may be a nuisance to you, and cause more work for you, for my great defects in the English prose. I hope you understand that I forever lived in country where English is not a language widely used nor even as a second or third language, which makes it very difficult my learning English, and every time I have more years old ...

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano 20:21, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Rectification of errors...

Dear Jeffrey Scott Bernstein: I do not understand why you change my original expression of italian peninsula by iberian peninsula (see diffs).

In my original article said italian peninsula, which is where Plotinus taught his doctrine. The change that you have done has changed a historical fact that is pointed out in my article, and now causes a grave mistake for knowledge. But in addition, you have made the change, and now you also presents a question mark ? at the end.

It is very good (and I am going to always be very grateful) that you will help correct prose and syntax English, but please, if you change my original concepts, historical facts known and corrects, by others who are wrong, then it may appear that I have committed such errors of knowledge, and of course, the article loses quality.

An expert on these issues might think that the original author of this article (ie, myself) are an ignoramus who does not know that Plotinus taught his doctrine almost exclusively in the peninsula of Italy, and which also I am as ignorant which I confused the Italian peninsula with the Iberian peninsula ...

If there are errors in my articles historical anachronisms, or incorrect data, of course, I am very grateful that somebody can correct these alleged mistakes, but so far, this is not the case. The only objection against my Calcidius article is the issue of English prose, namely that must be perfected English prose.

Please, I ask you, with great kindness and respect that you deserve, but to revise all the changes you have made in my article, and that you can ensure that these changes do not alter the basic concepts, and the historical facts , and correct data that through my knowledge I originally written.

It can correct prose, syntax, spelling, without changing names of countries like Italy by Iberia, causing a serious historical mistake ...

Once again, for you, my greatest thanks!, and my most sincere apologies for any inconvenience it may cause to you with my clumsiness in the mastery of English prose. Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano 21:03, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Dear Jeffrey Bernstein-Scott: Please always bear in mind at all times that I am Spanish, and with whom I hardly practise English in my country. Therefore, if at any time use a word that might sound or seem uncomfortable or annoying, never think that this is the real intention. I give my word of honor, that when that happens, it will be simply because of poor command of English prose, and not for other intention. Every time I ask you for an explanation for something, you can always presume with confidence, and absolute security, good faith and good intentions, my questions and even my complaints. Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano 21:16, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Eeesh, I guess I have to put this here as well: Yes, I know; that's why I put the question mark in bold; I knew you would deal with it quickly, within minutes or hours (I hoped). And the draft I saw had "Italic peninsula", not "Italian" -- hence I was mystified. Obviously I wouldn't have changed "Italian" for "Iberian", unless I was under the spell of the Weird Sisters. Unfortunately, to my great discredit, it was what one calls an "injudicious decision". Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, I realize I should have divined "Italian". After I logged out, I thought to myself, "I should have left 'Italic peninsula' and just let the next person figure it out." I recognized that I should have gone back and restored the original, eccentric "Italic peninsula". I just knew it would be a problem, because Iberian didn't sound right, but as I say, I hoped the black question mark would inspire you to fix it fast. Two bad decisions on my part. Sorry. Thankfully the error due to my injudicious behavior remained for only a very short duration of time. I should stay away from such activities, I guess, unless I become even more stringent in my method.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 21:22, 6 March 2008 (CST)

Dear Jeffrey Scott Bernstein: It is not necessary so many apologies. You have acted with good faith and good intentions, and that is really important in this universe... You can suggest and make any changes that you deem best for English prose, for example, if you believe it is better to say that Plotinus disclosed his doctrines in the Peninsula of Italy, which say that he disclosed his doctrines in the Italian Peninsula or Italic Peninsula, there is no problem, because it does not change the historical fact nor the original sense; but is not the same Peninsula of Italy' or Italian Peninsula or Italic Peninsula which Iberian Peninsula. In any case, I see you have understood very well my arguments, despite my English so poorly. Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano 22:11, 6 March 2008 (CST)

I have an idea - I believe we have some authors here who speak Spanish, perhaps we can find someone that can help translate a version from Spanish. That might make this easier and we won't run the risk of losing context. Let me bug some people and see if I can get that figured out. --Todd Coles 21:33, 6 March 2008 (CST)

It is an excellent idea, but I suggest that is American, or British, who know well speak Spanish. They have no sense to seek other Spaniards, or Latins or South American, whose official language is Spanish, or Castillian, because then, it would be exactly the same that I do. Well, I am Spanish, I can write in English, with the usual defects of any Spanish (or South American) who was not born in a country where English is the second official language, and then, it has been his whole life (as a child ) speaking English. In fact it is very difficult to find a Spanish (Spain), or a Cuban or an Argentinean, or a Peruvian or Chilean, who has been speaking English since the child as a second language. So, I suggest that this person must be a native USA, or England, or from any country where English is the official language, and foremost, or at least is the second language, and therefore know very well the language English as a child. Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano 22:24, 6 March 2008 (CST)

In the meantime

Someone emailed me with a solution for the first "paragraph to fix":

"Calcidius’s contributions were not widely recognized by Occidentals in the centuries following his death. His messages were similar in theme to that of other classic Latin literature but gained importance upon the decline of the Hellenistic age."

Variation: ["His messages were"] = "His content was"

May as well continue on:

Second "paragraph to fix" [solution isn't perfect, but it is one slight degree further along towards perfection, as it were]:

"This precision [AC VESTIBULO SINUS] corresponds with a species of clarification or explanation, which is intended specifically for Osius, as if Calcidius believed it was necessary to specify the exact place where Plato was locating "ATLANTIS INSULA", ie, not only before of the mouth of the strait of Hercules, but “in the same vestibule or entry (VESTIBULO), in the gulf (SINUS) -- that is, in the current Gulf of Cadiz (also known as Atlantic Gulf or Atlantic Pelagus), which is the only Gulf that exists, just in the Atlantic mouth, before the Pillars of Hercules, otherwise known as the Gibraltar Strait."

There are two more marked paragraphs to see to. Good luck someone.

At any rate, I'm certainly not adding anything . . .Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 10:24, 7 March 2008 (CST)

The opening bit was from Spanish WP, so I've done that, but the rest needs discussion. Ro Thorpe 16:58, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Translations

Please, kindly ask everyone to please not change my translations of the texts in Latin and Greek, without first consulting my views on the matter.

Dears and respected colleagues:

Please, this can seriously damage the real meaning of the translation. My translations are literal, lexicographical, and grammar, and I dedicate many hours and days, and whenever I revisit many times, hundreds of times.

For example, the correct translation, grammar and scientifical of the expression in Latin: "apparent vestigia" is in English: "apparent vestiges", as in Spanish is "aparentes vestigios". It is very easy to see, as both the English, such as Spanish, have inherited two words of Latin, with the same form and the same meaning (see diffs).

I am a little worried, because the changes are beginning to alter the senses and meanings of my original article, are causing errors of translation and interpretation (from Latin or Greek), and even absurd questions, such as, I am talking about a single inscription (in the singular) and has been replaced by inscriptions (in the plural); (see diffs).

Other example, the issue about the latin word subscriptio (see User talk:Georgeos Díaz-Montexano)

In any event, with respect to my translations of Latin and Greek, as I have done translations, which are signed and published by me, to be cited as a quote, must not be altered. If Citizendium Editor is a graduate academic expert in Latin or Greek, and not happy with my translations can argue with me kindly, and presenting the arguments, always with the best and most up-to-date grammars and lexicons of the two classical languages; and Ultimately, it can make use of its power as Editor, and change my translations for other translations carried out by other experts. I always am going to accept any changes to these terms. But while the translation to remain, whether mine, ie the quote attributed or signed by me, then, should not be altering my translations, at least without a simple query.

I am responsible for my translations of the texts in Greek or Latin, and I can accept a debate with an editor skilled in Greek or Latin on other possible ways to translate or interpret, and for that we talk page. But please, I only ask that before making any changes that may cause an alteration of original meaning of my ideas and my concepts, the proposal is definitely in the discussion page, or even in my discussion page.

I do not understand because there is so much in a hurry to amend the article, without exposing before the issue in the discussion page or my personal page, and without waiting for my reply, I every day I spend a few hours at Citizendium.

Please repeat once again: I am very grateful to everyone for the help on the issue of the correction in the syntax and prose in English, but I pray with all kindness, all that before making changes that could somehow change the original meaning of the statement, and especially my translations of Latin and Greek, which are languages that I dominoes much better than the English, and nearly as good as the higher academic expert, after more than 20 years Study.

Please do not want to disturb or offend anyone, neither want nor seem ungrateful. Quite the contrary, I am very grateful, and I see that you are all doing an excellent job, always with the best intentions. And I repeat once again that I am very grateful. I hope that we can all improve this article, especially looking for a better writing and better syntax of English prose, and better adapt to the style and objectives of a Encilopedia.

I can guarantee that exists in no other encyclopedia published earlier, an article more expanded and more comprehensive Calcidius about this article that I published, and that everyone can become a prominent article in Citizendium. I do not want anyone to lose the spirit.

I am a little demanding and jealous with my articles or writings, especially with my translations directly from the ancient languages, I know, but I offer you my word that I look for perfection always, the truth, and that my goals and intentions are absolutely honest and very altruistic.

I hope that we can all make excellent, with high quality, especially those sciences and humanities old languages, and ancient texts, which are also not rare, but that means that we have to work a little more in order and coordination .

I think what would be more correct that every doubt, or every suggestion (other than a simple correction of a misspelling, or a syntax error in the prose of the English language), should be exposed on the page discussion article, or if you like (I prefer) on my personal page discussion, in this way not over-charge too the discussion page article of Calcidius, whose role is more logical to discuss philosophical concepts, and passages of life not Calcidius including, or even possible mistakes of my translations of the texts in Latin and Greek. Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano 22:04, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Dear Sir, I had absolutely nothing (nada) to do with your Latin and Greek. The one (uno) issue you had with me ("Iberian peninsula") was, I admit, atrociously bad judgment on my part and was changed within a couple of hours of its offensive appearance ("aspecto ofensivo"?). As for the Greek and the Latin, I didn't change a letter, and would not have even dreamt of changing a letter, so why you posted information on the matter at my user page remains un misterio. As I wrote above, I've left this project in the hands of more capable users, so please address your concerns to them exclusively in future. Congratulations on your fine work. All the best, Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 00:14, 8 March 2008 (CST)

For what it's worth, I'm going to take a step back from this article as well. I'm afraid that in my attempts to correct the prose that I might unintentionally change part of a translation. It's probably best served that someone who understands Spanish (like Ro) help with this, and perhaps we can find someone else more familiar with ancient languages to help as well. I apologize for any inadvertent changes I made that changed the meanings of the translations. I'd just like to see this article's readability fixed, because I think it would make a great nomination for Archive:New Draft of the Week. --Todd Coles 12:50, 8 March 2008 (CST)

Collaborative writing

I've been asked to look at this page in my role in dispute management for the Executive Committee. There is an issue that I think I should comment on, as it relates to general Citizendium policy.

The Citizendium is a collaborative encyclopedia, so as soon as text is put into an article the author loses all personal rights to it. It becomes joint property for anyone here to change and improve freely. Of course very major changes - especially deletions -must be explained, but nothing else necessarily needs discussion. If you see a change you disagree with, just change it back with a remark in the comment line. But nobody can ask for the right to be consulted on changes, that makes collaborative writing impossible, and anyone who wants to retain control over an article should really not put that article on Citizendium. I understand Georgios's concerns about translation, but what he are asking is placing an unreasonable burden on co-writers and will discourage them. Accordingly I have reformatted the section above, and will shortly ask that this Talk page be archived - its appearance wiped clean, so to speak. The Talk page is for issues that genuinely need discussion, not errors simply corrected with an edit.Gareth Leng 02:34, 8 March 2008 (CST)

Dear Gareth Leng:

I well understand your comments, and I understand very well the rules of Citizendium, because I have read carefully, I have only asked for a favour (an exception to the rule), because I think my case is special, not because they are better than others but just because I have to translate my own writings from Spanish into English (according to my limited knowledge of English prose), and at the same time, I must ensure that the translations that I made from the Greek, or from the Latin, Spanish , after being properly translated into English, and at this point, I put all my effort, and even revisit word for word and all its meanings and definitions according to the treaty authorized Lexicography Greek, Latin and English, to ensure that the translation from Greek and Latin into Spanish, and then the English, not lose fidelity, and be as accurate as possible.

I understand the rules, and I understand the principle that is supported Citizendium (which is very similar to Wikipedia), but Mr. Sanger told me that my articles were reviewed earlier by some editors to be experts in the same subjects or disciplines, In other words, as in this case, in Old Greek Classic, Classic latin, Palaeography, Lexicography, Ancient Philosophy and Platonism, which are the issues that span and treat Calcidius article, and always before they approved the article. But from the outset, the article has been online, and has been constantly being revised, with regard to the syntax and English prose (and I have always shown my deepest gratitude, and we will continue doing), but my concern has been seen that when I was altering the original meaning of the article, and even concepts, which have resulted in even serious mistakes, or absurd, as I suppose to be seen in the history of messages.

That is why I have asked that favour, this exception to the rule. I think that Citizendium will not suffer any harm, because they simply make a simple query to the original authors, ie the first to start an article and write more than 99% of it from the outset; even in cases special like this, where the perpetrator is Spanish, not English prose dominates correctly.

I think that I have outlined very clear examples of how certain changes could alter the original meaning of a rule, after which many years of research, data collection and documentary sources.

At first glance, the image that gave Mr. Sanger is Citizendium that is not exactly like Wikipedia, where anyone (without advanced knowledge or expert in any subject), you can change and modify articles, and that is why the constant and endless wars that exist in editions of Wikipedia. From the outset, Mr. Sanger explained (in private emails yet retain), which unlike the Wikipedia and similar in Citizendium, articles will be reviewed by experts in the same academic fields (peer review), something similar the process academic or university before being approved. And in this connection is that I was very interested to cooperate with Citizendium and for the above reasons I never wanted to collaborate on other projects like Wikipedia.

Thus, I hope that my article would then be reviewed by a committee of experts in Old Classic Greek, Latin Classic, Palaeography, Lexicography, Ancient Philosophy and Platonism, which are the disciplines that includes article about Calcidius, which he ceded to Citizendium, with total freedom of use under the license specifies that this encyclopedia.

I do not know what really happened, but from the outset, the article has been online, and has not gone through any committee of experts graduates in Old Classic Greek, Latin Classic, Palaeography, Lexicography, Ancient Philosophy and Platonism. ..

I repeat once again, I fully understand the rules, and I believe that anyone has the right to modify, but if these modifications are made without consultation or simply the original author of the article (although it is only by ethics), we could then go on life I change and then reverses another, and then returns to the previous reverse, and so ad infinitum ", which is like starting wars editions that are unnecessary, and can be assiduously avoided by a simple dialogue. Actually, I do not understand what is the reason why there is so much haste in wanting to change and amend the articles, without waiting for a simple dialogue between employees and the principal author or first.

In any case, I do not want to be a problem for you. If the rules are that every day, at any time, someone can make a change that could alter the meaning, or create a historical mistake, or even something absurd, then, as your kind advice, the only solution that exists is that correct myself again, explaining the reasons ... Well, try to see where I stand, because it is very tiring, having to be constantly changing, the original sense, and data, and historical facts correct, every time someone change if the offer even a simple explanation.

However, let me explain that so far, all those who have worked, have acted with good faith and honesty, and has always made comments, and thanks to these comments is that I have been able to precisely detect errors that constitute these changes.

My question is: Is it logical that it is the original author of a text, you have to be constantly offering explanations, whenever returns or reverses the original word or phrase, which had previously been changed for another, or maybe not it is more logical to be the new partner, which should offer explanations because he believes doing any change to an article already written before making that change?

In any case, thanks, once again, their help and collaboration, and in particular the attempt by wanting to help me understand better the functioning of Citizendium. In any case, the fault is mine, "mea culpa," because according to the conversations I had with Mr Sanger, I thought that was different Citizendium Wikipedia in this aspect, and that only Editors, experts in various sciences and academic disciplines , which would approve the amendments and changes suggested by the authors. I'm sorry for having misunderstood the true issues and principles. Kind regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano 04:09, 8 March 2008 (CST)