User talk:DL5MDA

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, DL5MDA!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

BotMultichillT (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)



File source is not properly indicated: File:Merkelwalze bw.png[edit]

{{Autotranslate|1=File:Merkelwalze bw.png|base=Image source}}--Nokia 770 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I did the drawing myself. Best regards from Munich, DL5MDA (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Snark scans[edit]

Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 7.jpg

Feel free to use them anywhere! Credit is welcomed, but not required.

As for file size: if I need them smaller, what I usually do is use Wikipedia's thumbnailing software to shrink them down a bit. These are scanned at 1200px, which is a little excessive, but it's usually better to go a bit over the top with these sorts of things, rather than under.

If you wanted to remove the paper grain or colour, I could prepare a modified version for you fairly easily: I save an intermediate edit, which makes it pretty easy to go back and make other choices. Just let me know. =)

As for my cats, they're fine. Sweet and purry. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adam. Tanks for the help, but I could do that, if necessary. So you have more time to scan pics ;-)
A comment on your comment on image:Lewis_Carroll_-_Henry_Holiday_-_Hunting_of_the_Snark_-_Plate_7.jpg: "The rest of the lesson is pretty much complete nonsense". That assumption may be right. But it also may be wrong. Example: "To preserve its symmetrical shape" could be a snarkish pun on what William Paley had cooked up in his Natural Theology. (Search for "symmetry" in http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=A142&pageseq=1.) Of course that is a guess too.
Well, looking into it, I see that Carroll DID write Darwin under pleasant terms, so it's possible, but the problem is that it's very hard to tell without actual proof. In any case, I hardly think that my very brief synopsis will be taken as the end of scholarship, I mainly just want to give a rough feel of the poem's context, without intending prejudice to deeper meaning. Did you notice that the mathematical section of that speech multiplies, then divides by 992, stated slightly differently, so that it's not immediately obvious? It's a subtle joke, but rather a good one.
You are right, there is no actual proof. Actually, there never will be actual proof. As a mathematician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) had the choice between providing proof and writing poetry. And Holiday hat the choice to select the degrees of ambuigity. Both where excellent communicators and knew what they did. Dodgson wrote almost boringly clear text books on logic and Holiday became a wealthy man by designing non controversial and customer friendly stained glass windows. But both needed playfields, for Dodgson that was poetry (written by "Carroll") and for Holiday this was the chance to produce weird illustrations for Carroll. Clear messages would have been unhealthy for Dodgeson, so he left the hot potatos to Carroll. Therefore discussions on the Snark will go on as long as there are readers of the Snark. That is good, because I still will have a toy to play with once I retire (in 12 years or so).
However, instead of proof, there will be probabilities (verious grades of acceptance of interpretations). Presently most recepients of the Snark believe that the Ballad nonsense. But (also with regard to what people believe and believed elsewise) that is no proof either. Some even detect filth, which (very probably) is due to traps set up by Carroll and Holiday for uncautious recepients. Arts is the tool to deal with realities for which proof is too dangerous. (I think, that is the meta-topic of the Snark ballad.) That is why arts has been and is been taken serious for example by dictators when it still is not ambiguous enough. Marcus Gheeraerts t.E. experienced that and not a too long time ago we had "entartete Kunst" ("degenerated arts") being destroyed even though by design no 100% proof of the meaning can be given, which the art works conveyed. At least this is a proof for the power of arts. --DL5MDA (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You mentioned the number crunching in Fit the Fifth. That may stand for self referential reasoning as repeating statements thrice may stand for apodictic reasoning. Lots of people try to find more in the numbercrunching. There is more, but how significant is that. Carroll/Dodgson perhaps had fun to imagine how people will keep on guessing for ever what the crunching could mean. --DL5MDA (talk) 07:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
If you'll forgive a minor critique: I found the analysis of the art interesting, but without larger images, it's hard to see a firm concordance in the areas indicated, and the areas seem a little small for some, given the limited number of techniques for shading engravings. That said, it's thought-provoking, and I don't want to bash your work, just encourage a little more care in saying "it is possible" rather than "it is" =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, god, that's really rambly. I should go to bed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
No problem - because whoever wants to see more details, now can have a look into your scans - and into the centennial Kaufmann edition (ISBN 0-913232-36-X). As for "it is possible" instead of "it is", I quite consciously chose apodicticity. Perhaps I even should have stated "it is" thrice. I am quite sure of some of my assumptions and quite probably overstretched it a bit with regards to some other assumptions. But I do not only play with the topic of [HolidaySnark.pdf]. I play with perception and want to see, how people deal with this. --[User:DL5MDA|DL5MDA] (talk) 07:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
That's getting very meta there =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, as for my next set: Well, my scanner's, in a literal sense, half broken: I can only use the right half, so I'm limited to my smaller works, and stuff from the LoC and so on. I was thinking maybe finishing off the Tristram Shandy set, and possibly some Dickens, Norse mythology, Ingoldsby Legends, Naval history, or these little pictures of British troops (if I can date 'em accurately enough). Frankly, first person to suggest a course can probably get a fair bit of free labour, if I have anything in that line available =)

Lewis_Carroll_-_Henry_Holiday_-_Hunting_of_the_Snark_-_Plate_7.jpg (diff)[edit]

Good catch: Wish I had thought to add it into the lists =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A also had to add something into that list of Snarkfit5.svg: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ASnarkfit5.svg&diff=22820326&oldid=20478054 --DL5MDA (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Didn't want to edit it, as it used a different layout, and I didn't want to intrude =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)