Talk:Alexander Blok

message: Just out of curiosity, what was the rationale for the "Street, lamp, the same drugstore." translation?  It can't be to preserve rhyme (with "before") since no other rhymes are preserved in the translation (while Blok's poem is rhymed AbAb throughout), and it would be silly to preserve only a single one. I suggest we opt for the literal translation and don't add the superfluous "the same" which doesn't even exist in the original.  What is your source for this translation?
Putting the original text side by side seems to make sense -- and furthermore, be an established practice on Wikipedia.  This is true not only for poetry, but also for names, etc. Also, since it is English WP, it is natural that the English trans. come first -- and it does. --Mefistofele 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Night. Street. Lamp. Drugstore." 

message: To explain my "sloppy" edits, I will go through the begining ones one by one:
probably the most gifted lyrical poet -> one of the most gfted lyrical poets == this is arguable; removed the bias
at Warsaw -> in Warsaw == learn English, guys
of St. Petersburg University -> of the St. Petersburg State University == inserted article
After the parents' separation -> After his parents' separation == grammar
little-known -> obscure == more professional
Verses upon the Fair Lady -> Verses About the Beautiful Lady == not only does "upon" not work in this context, "about the beautiful lady" is the accepted translation for this work -- do a google search if you doubt
His down-to-earth wife was transformed there -> In it, he transformed his humble wife == reworked extremely awkward sentence
Idealized mystical images of the first book -> The idealized... == inserted required aritcle
etc. etc. etc.  As you can see, Ghirlandajo, or as somebody with an intermediate command of the English language might be able to see, these are not sloppy edits, but rather, edits that improve the quality of the writing in the article.  I realize you created the article, and thus might feel protective of its content -- or insulted that your English needs work. Nevertheless, please understand that I have the best interests of the article in mind when I edit it.
--Mefistofele 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  general comments 

message: I just checked the current version of Britannica Online (<http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9015684> [Accessed April 24, 2006].) and it does not refer to him as the "most gifted lyrical poet" nor does it use any other biased superlative language.  Neither should we.  And the fact that Britannica did would still not mean that we should.  --Mefistofele 21:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided a quote for you. It's easy to discard the most respected encyclopedia of the English-speaking world as "sloppy and subjective" when you have written no articles yourself. Instead of gratitude to other users who put their hard work into writing this article, you keep insulting them. It doesn't augur well for your stay in Wikipedia, to be sure. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  most gifted poet 

message: (Originally posted to Ghirlandajo's talk page, from where it was promptly removed by him. This is getting ridiculous. But OK, let's try discussing it here.)
I think you really need to be more considerate. Your revert was very impolite. I can imagine how chilling it would be for a novice editor. (I'm not a novice, and you probably know me, I just didn't login into my account because I'm not on my own computer right now.) You didn't question the accuracy or NPOV of my contribution; you just reverted it with a very NPOV comment "please start a separate article on The Twelve if you think this ugly poem deserves it". Don't you think that if YOU think it needs a separate article, it's YOU who are supposed to start it and move my edits there? Or at least, ask me to do this WITHOUT reverting? Isn't it just good manners? 	 
 		 
So, I would really appreciate it if you now do one of these, i.e. either start a new article on the poem, or at lest revert your revert so I could do this myself. It would be extra nice if you could try to refrain from insulting comments like the one quoted above. It's an encyclopedia. Thank you. Trapolator 20:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you bothered to look at the page, you would see that your additions were split into separate article The Twelve on May 1. --Ghirla -трёп- 07:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thank you. Trapolator 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Ghirlandajo 

message: Vladimir Soloviev was not an uncle of Blok: Olga Solovieva, a cousin of Blok's mother was married to Mikhail Soloviev, Vladimir Soloviev's brother. Thus, Vladimir Solovie was, in fact, a very distant relative of Blok. ZMatskevich (talk) 02:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soloviev 

message: :Poetry centric and I have been having a discussion about the Poetry Lovers Page as a source for external links. I don't support the inclusion for reasons given below. I thought we should transfer the discussion here. Span (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Spanglej, Is there a reason why you do not like Yevgeny Bonver's translations of Alexandr Blok's poems? You have removed a link to the Poetry Lovers' Page, which is the official site of original and unique translations of Russian poets by Yevgeny Bonver. Poetry Lovers' Page has been around since 1995, is a quite reputable resource. Please consider re-adding the link back to Alexandr Blok's Wiki page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry centric (talk • contribs) 18:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your message. I would have a look at the conflict of interest guideline. It seems that you are promoting an organisation that you are involved with. External links guidelines state: "You should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent". Best wishes Span (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Spanglej, Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I have reviewed the links to the guidelines in your previous response. You are right, the policies state that one “should not” post links in my situation (the wording does not imply that it is forbidden). However, when in doubt, it states, that other editors should participate in review of the posted links. Given that I am still trying to introduce original material into the common knowledge base, I ask of you to remain objective, and that you once more review the PLP link/site, and please take another look at the arguments I posted in my previous message for keeping the link intact. Please let me know of your decision. In the meantime, in order to clear the conflict of interest issue, I will recuse myself from further postings on this page, and will let other editors step in, if needed. Regards, Poetry_Centric  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poetry centric (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Poetry Centric, the above is my take on things. I suggest we move this discussion to Blok's talk page. I still stand by my above views. I'm sure the site will be a great web resource but I think it's not best as a source of external links on Wkipedia. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translations by Yevgeny Bonver 

message: External links
English translation of Blok's Poems. The New Formalist Press. Retrieved 2010-10-28
Bad link as of 2012-03-01
G. Robert Shiplett 12:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad link 

message: This was rated b-class, but I've re-rated it start-class. It does not meet the b-class standards as per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#grades guidelines. The article is not suitably referenced. The article does not reasonably cover the topic. The article is not "substantial", considering the importance of Blok and the number of sources available on him, or well-referenced, which would be required even for c-class. INeverCry  23:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Rating

message: I removed a quote from The Twelve (poem). The poem is famous, but this particular translation does not add anything to the page. What it suppose to illustrate? It should not go as the first quotation on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotations