User talk:Folantin/Archive 4

Mail

Sent you some mail late last night. Cheers, Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mail, slightly unusual request. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied briefly. More tomorrow. --Folantin (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brief reply. Happy New Year! Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

No worries, i'm in the same boat as you. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. I look forward towards getting to it. Cheers!-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dbachmann ArbCom

Noted. Thanks for letting me know. Kirill 20:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

I hope you are enjoying the holidays. You have greatly contributed to the Nader Shah article. Do you think it is ready to be renominated for good article?--Agha Nader (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will try to find an open source map to include as well.--Agha Nader (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

อุษา ดุลนิมิตร

Folantin, you are correct: อุษา ดุลนิมิตร is in Thai. I've summarized it on the Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English page. I think is should be deleted. - Thaimoss (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Georgia?! That is hysterical! I'd like to dream up some excuse like "they renamed it after I linked it in...." or something, but the truth is, I just goobered that one. Fixed it now. Laugh of the day! Thanks for pointing that out to me.- Thaimoss (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to List of Important Operas

Please see the dicussion page with the article for my comments. I was only making a few additions per Grove (I have the set of dictionaries in front of me now) that you were missing from the early list - only there. No Ercole amante, no Lully operas, and no extant Peri operas is nonsense. Chacun à son goût ! Regards, Charvex (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least we are generally on the same track. (Except for Calisto, I would remove the other Cavallis - I love them all - and keep Ercole amante. Such an important landmark in the history of opera! Five-part scoring(!) 6- and 8-voice ensembles(!)... what do you want for "importance"? - - As for Lully's Cadmus et Hermione, well, its his second opera, very catchy tunes and rhythms but hardly among his greatest. - - Have you heard his Roland conducted by Rousset? Unbelieveably great! If you don't have it, but it tonight on-line. Roland was Lully's penultimate work. Harmonically groundbreaking. Whenever I listen to the Prologue alone, I am singing for the full next week. (I can't believe no one has written an article on Wikipédia about it. It is certainly as good as Armide, Lully's "masterpiece". - - And yes, yes, yes, Médée - how could anyone leave that off! Charvex (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the list. Lully's first opera is missing: Les fêtes de l'Amour et de Bacchus (pastorale in three acts, plus prologue), libretto by Quinault, de Benserade, & de Périgny after Molière, first performance at the Jeu de Paume de Béquet, in Paris, on (?)10 November 1672. The full score was published by B. Brook (New York), in 1984 (I think). It's been a while since I read it through. It is in the catalogue Chronologische-thematisches Verzeichnis sämtlicher Werke von Jean-Baptiste Lully, ed. H. Schneider (Tutzing, 1981). - - I would add it but some idiot would remove it; the whole trouble with Wikipédia sometimes. - - By the way, my first car was a Morris Minor. I traded it for a Renault R5! Practically its French twin. Both were indestructible. (smile) Charvex (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: See my comments about the double post at User talk:Moreschi - - Charvex (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Karabakh

Greetings Folantin, I saw your post on user:VartanM's talk page and I humbly disagree with your take on this wikiproject. I think it's a very useful means to collaborate on articles related to Nagorno-Karabakh. I have an interest in Nagorno-Karabakh (as well as other unrecognized countries) and I joined WikiProject Karabakh to improve articles on Karabakh. I belong to neither WikiProject Armenia or WikiProject Azerbaijan. I invite you to join WikiProject Karabakh as I've noticed that you have knowledge and interest in the Caucases and there are many areas where this could be helpful. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I just noticed that a one month moratorium has been enforced by admin user:Moreschi. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les Abencérages, ou L'étendard de Grenade

Salut! I don't if you can really call Les Abencérages, ou L'étendard de Grenade « Cherubini's last serious opera » as you have in the beginning of your article. Ali-Baba, ou Les quarante voleurs is a tragédie-lyric. I haven't heard it or read the score, as you may have, but I'm very suspicious that the statement is incorrect, and that Ali-Baba is it. - - And by the way, do English speakers really translated « étendard » as « standard » ?? Isn't « flag » better? (I was taught that « standard » was a hyper-correct, obsolete English word for « flag », but what do I know! Is this a word you hear every day? I though a « standard » is what you call elementary school levels in Britian.) Tchao! Charvex (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. FYI: I just thought I would add that La marquise de Brinvilliers is another serious opéra that followed Les Abencérages, ou L'étendard de Grenade. My Grove says it is a drame lyrique in 3 acts. However, it was a collaborative work with Auber, Batton, Berton, Blagini, Boiëldieu, Carafa, Hérold, and Paer, with Cherubini's biggest contribution being the Act I introduction. The text of the Grove article on Cherubini does not say one word about La marquise, but it is in Grove's « quasi-official » list of his operas. Just two pennies worth of more info for your pleasure. (P.S. I noticed your change to Les Abencérages.) Tchao! Charvex (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! Brianga (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOW he vandalized after final warning :) He's been banned. Thanks. Brianga (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: ArbCom Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. -- Cat ^chi? 18:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet User:Hebog?

You claimed User:Hebog is a sockpuppet account in the edit summary of Cymdeithas Edmwnd Puw. If that is true, could you please tag who it is by adding {{sock}} to their user page. They can be blocked at WP:AIV or WP:ANI. —dgies^t_c 16:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven

Hi, thanks for your edit. I was confused as I couldn't see a semi-protected tag/note anywhere and I kept geting the wikimedia 404 page too! Thanks --88.172.132.94 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. Thanks for correcting my voting. vcpk (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cilician Armenia

Thanks for your great contributions to the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia article! PHG (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Folantin. FYI, the Cilician Armenia article is one that we have identified as a target of biased editing by PHG, specifically as regards WP:UNDUE issues with Franco-Mongol relations. If you could assist in helping to ensure that everything stays neutral and well-referenced, that would be helpful. :) For more info, see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. There's also a pending ArbCom case (undecided if it will be accepted or not), but I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to offer a statement: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance. --El on ka 23:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Illyrian mythology

First off, *I* added that reference and have read the book. While I didn't write the entire article and can't guarantee that every fact is from that reference, I can confirm that the topic itself is not a hoax by any means. The book was later reviewed by reputable journals who bemoaned its lack of larger maps, but never hinted that the book didn't treat a scholarly topic. I'd have no problem removing the details the anon created, but I do have a problem with the entire article being tossed out because no one disputing the current article wants to bother correcting it. Its also scary that a string of 4 redirects has now been created from the original article. Shell ^babelfish 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the redirects are cleaned up automatically by bots, don't worry about them. The present "Paleo-Balkanic" solution is probably better than having three barely referenced stubs (Thracian, Dacian, Illyrian). If somebody sits down and expands the article, it can always be split up again later. dab (𒁳) 12:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ?

Salut! (English sorry speaking bad véry am i). On :fr , some user seems to want one thinks him to be you. If you are not, maybe would you have some explanation ? (= Si vous ne l'êtes pas, peut-être souhaiterez-vous demander une explication ?) 88.165.212.52 (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (alias Rigolithe) PS No need of answer, this is not a question, only an information.[reply]

Oui, je suis "le vrai Folantin". Apparemment, il y a un autre utilisateur avec le nom "Folantin" sur Wikipedia.fr - au moins, c'est ce qu'on m'a dit hier quand j'y ai créé un compte. --Folantin (talk) 11:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination of Julius Caesar

Most of it came from the Julius Caesar article, it was formerly a redirect to there. The talk page was never deleted or anything, it was just really started on the 14th. I couldn't believe that one of the most famous assainations of antiquity didn't have an article, but hey, that's systemic bias. Editor of the wiki 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of events named massacres

Hi Folantin

Just thought I'd drop a quick note to point out that I have suggested at Talk:List of events named massacres that having helpfully set out your concerns, it would be great if you could suggest a solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of GA

While I appreciate your opinion that the GA process is flawed, I suggest the comment that you've recently added to your user page goes against wikipedia's guideline on civility. Would you please consider rewording it? Thanks--jwanders^Talk 23:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, civility is subjective and since I haven't attacked any one editor in particular I don't see the message as uncivil. However, I have made one minor change in the interests of good will. Any more than that would be going against the principle of free speech. --Folantin (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace Folantin4

As you've seen I've added a lot of titles. My suggestion is to limit it to one work per composer so it clearly represents a new approach to extending coverage. How about that? Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking we can bill this as 'Major works by minor composers' (or similar). For less than minor composers with multiple red links (e.g. Hindemith) we can adopt our usual approach. Having been through this exercise this morning (my time) I've been interested to see how many 'one-hitters' we have. -- Kleinzach (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You write: " . . . one of the major problems . . . if people aren't interested in that month's composer/topic area they just don't contribute at all." Yes - but what to do about it? I don't see this being changed by our choice of operas, especially those by the 2nd rankers. I'd like to see a 'division of labour' approach (one person covers Grove, one person covers recordings, etc etc) involving the less-experienced editors, but only Jay has been good enough to take on specialized tasks like boxes, tables. If you can think of some way to involve the new people that will be good.

Anyway the 80-odd composers we have lined up are well-worth doing in their own right. There are various ways they can be grouped. I guess around 10 operas a month are doable to 'viable stub' level. -- Kleinzach (talk) 10:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 votes so far for Charpentier and Campra so we should wait - and it must be fixed on the project page not here, but if you can edit the opera titles on The opera corpus that will be a help, adding titles in Viking, recent recordings etc. Maintaining the opera corpus is the key to managing it all. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks just right for one month. Meanwhile I'll ask GT to have a look at our major minors list. -- Kleinzach (talk) 11:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about (premiere) dating the individual operas in the list (e.g. Die Jagd (Johann Adam Hiller, 1770)? One possible approach would be to present the list - for CotM - purely by date, e.g. Operas of the 1770s and 1780s. -- Kleinzach (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Baghdad

Hiya, I'm trying to get caught up on the whole Geir Smith situation now. I see that there's some ranting about me on French Buddhist sites,[1] and that PHG seems to be involved somehow, but I'm unclear on the exact link. Do you have any insight? PHG definitely copy/pastes the image of the Dalai Lama all over the place when he gets upset, and I see some messages on PHG's talkpage about "Thank you for posting the Buddhist perspective."[2] I'd like to bring this up at the current ArbCom case, but I'm not sure exactly what to say! Would you be interested in offering a statement, just to make ArbCom aware of what's going on? --El on ka 09:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very entertaining reading, both at FTN and that Phayul site. I wasn't aware that I was so powerful... My CIA handlers will be pleased. ;) Seriously though, my initial impression on the connection between PHG and GS, was that PHG, obviously already with Buddhist leanings (since he keeps falling back on the Dalai Lama pic), had probably been ranting about me off-wiki to Buddhist friends, one of which turned out to be GS. However, judging from the ranting at phayul.com, it appears that they don't know each other yet, and GS got interested in Wikipedia though some other means. Then again, he does refer to PHG as "the famous PHG", so there may be some other off-wiki connection by which he heard of him. I have to say that in my months of dealing with PHG, it has at times reminded me of dealing with a cult member -- such as the way he repeats certain phrases over and over, and the way he searches only for the things that confirm his worldview and is able to completely disregard everything else. It also seemed to me that he had some sort of off-wiki support network, which helped him to withstand the near unanimous disapproval of many of his on-wiki actions. When I first started dealing with him last Fall, I wondered if there was a Freemason connection, since he definitely seemed to have a sort of fan worship of Jacques de Molay. But "Buddhist cult" is now sounding more and more likely. Anyway, FYI, --El on ka 16:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I have seen nothing on-wiki from PHG that indicates he is collaborating with GS et al. Everything that I've got is circumstantial: They are both Buddhist, both fascinated by the Mongols, both interested in pushing "unusual" POVs into the Mongol articles, and that PHG has been thanked for putting the "Buddhist POV" into Wikipedia. Also, it is odd that normally PHG is quick to thank anyone who seems to support him, even if it's unusual support. But with the GS sock messages to his talkpage, to my knowledge, PHG has never replied to any of them on-wiki: As for your final comment: "This whole episode has been the strangest I have encountered on Wikipedia and has left me wondering about the quality of mental health care in France." Yes, that pretty much sums it up. :) --El on ka 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, TROUDUCUL (talk · contribs) just popped up and is showing some of the same patterns. French, and obsessed with me and medieval topics. I don't know if it's related to PHG's most recent block, or Geir Smith, or Tibet, or France's mental health system, or what, but wanted to keep you in the loop. :) --El on ka 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of « felice »

Salut! I just read your Rossini article about his opera « L'inganno felice ». I believe the English translation of the title is not quite correct. It is translated as "The Fortunate Deception", which in Italian would be « L'inganno fortunati ». (My dictionary translates the English meaning of "fortunate" as "good, unforeseen, and auspicious", which not quite right, I think.) The word felice means "happy" or "merry", which is simple and clear. Considing this opera is a simple farsa, I believe these words are closer to the true meaning. - - Perhaps you will agree that « The Merry Deception » is better than « The Fortunate Deception. with my best regards, Charvex (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Project welcome doc

Relating to our previous discussion about absorbing the energies of new members etc., I've drafted a welcome doc for new project members. It's here. Let me know if you have any comments - or edit directly on the draft if you prefer. Best. -- Kleinzach (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Shah

dear Folantin. I think I came with a good solution. Still refering to your sources for the general picture but leaving behind the disputed detailles. What was written in the article contradicts itself. 1- Nader Shah was an Afshar and was a Shia. 2- The city of mashad is a holy Shia city, and placing the capital there simply is in contrast to your claim that he did this in order to appease the Sunnis. 3- He did not favor Sunnis. As you wrote is that he lobbied for Shias in the Sunni circles, letting them go to Hajj. 4- Afterall the Afghan attacks (supported by the Ottomans) was A Sunni assault on Iran. He defetaed them and restored the order. What I and all sources DO AGREE is that he tried to appease the Sunnis (and other religious minorities e.g. jews) by lifting some intolerant Shia practices of the late Safavid era. By emphasising the Kolah-e Naderi you depict a picture which is wrong if one does not sees the context better or names many other different policies/ inventions of his. So I hope we can come into agreements.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC) I forgot to say that Jafari school is the same as the twelver Shia school.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The information on that page that you removed is sourced to Tucker and Axworthy, probably the two biggest living anglophone experts on Nader Shah. You removed information saying that Nader Shah had the chief mullah of Persia strangled (which he did) and that his religious policy was designed to weaken support for the Safavids (which, according to Axworthy and Tucker, it was). I didn't add the bit about the hat but it's there in Tucker and I don't see that the Kolah-E Naderi is given particular emphasis in the page. It's merely mentioned as a fact (which it was). --Folantin (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, the only fact that Tucker and Axworthy are Famous Anglophone historians, does not mean that all they say is true. Moreover I think their article is correct, but your phrasing is wrong. Of course everyone is selective in all citations, so you are no exception. What I say is to give information, which does not distort the general picture.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"To be honest with you, the only fact that Tucker and Axworthy are Famous Anglophone historians, does not mean that all they say is true". I'll take the word of reputable historians over "some guy off the Internet" any day of the week - and so will Wikipedia policy. "What I say is to give information, which does not distort the general picture". I followed my reliable sources. You removed important information. I don't think I'm the one "distorting the general picture". --Folantin (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look you may call me some guy over internet, and I might do that to you. There is no use in these namecallings. Those two people you mentioned had orientalist point of view and exaggerated things they want, there are plenty of other sources who give a less exoctic account of nader Shah. Why not referring to Tarikh-e naderi by Astarabadi, a source of Nader's time. Is it not better? Or are Persian sources per definition inferior to the Anglophone ones, even if the former are authentic and the second one are interpreted by orientalists?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Those two people you mentioned had orientalist point of view and exaggerated things they want". What absolute rubbish. You have no idea what you are talking about. Both those sources happen to use Astarabadi. You can't use Astarabadi yourself per Wikipedia policy, because it's a primary source: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" ([3]). I've seen you at work. You remove sourced information from articles that isn't acceptable your personal world view. In other words, you are a POV-pusher. If you continue to behave in this way I will get an admin to take action against you. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First your answer. I doubt that you cannot cite Astarabadi. I think what the rule says is: Citing mr X when you write about Mr X. is wrong. About removing sourced info? again it is your character of exaggeration. I generally do not remove sources. I first check the citations whether they are cited correct from the source. Secondly I check the sources fro reliability. But If you think that all rubbish should be in wikipedia I can phrase the information and show the (internal) contradictions within or between them. But I warn you, this will result to less readable texts.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You better start reading up on Wikipedia policy before you start messing with content. "If you think that all rubbish". All what rubbish? Information from the most reliable modern sources? Sorry, I don't have time to waste on your obsession with removing all mention of Nader Shah's mysteriously "dangerous" hat from Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are full of hate. I know that. I was telling about the Bullshit written in Iran Chamber society, an article without author. Yes you will call that relaiable. And you have obsessions with his hat? Oh yes My room has also 4 walls, I hope it does not mean that I am for 4 caliphs. Something else I drank two cups of coffe today, I hope it does not mean that I am dualistic. These obsessions with numbers is just........... (I do not want to be rude...)--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You are full of hate". Wrong again. The Iran Chamber Society is arguably not the most reliable source but you have provided no sources at all for the information you want to add there and by now I don't trust your say-so. As for Nader's hat: "One of his first acts as shah was to introduce a four-peaked hat (implicitly honoring the first four 'rightly-guided' Sunni caliphs), which became known as the kolah-e Naderi (EIr. X, p. 797, pl. CXIII), to replace the Qezelbash turban cap (Qezelbash taj; EIr. X, p. 788, pl. C), which was pieced with twelve gores (evocative of the twelve Shi'ite Imams)". So says Ernest Tucker (author of Nadir Shah's Quest for Legitimacy in Post-Safavid Iran) on Encyclopedia Iranica. --Folantin (talk) 17:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Tucker says that. Good for him, but it is his own interpretation. But I know your tactics> you try to make your opoosant so tired that he gives up. I brought you a good argument that Iran chamber society was wrong, because he already published Azeri works. Is it good enough for you if I name those works? Or if I mentioon a source in which they are mentioned?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tucker is a professional historian specialising in Iran (and Nader Shah) so his interpretation carries considerably more weight than yours. If you can find a reliable source proving Samad Behrangi was able to publish Azeri-language versions of his works (in Iran, of course) then go ahead and add it. --Folantin (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you talk this way. I hope then you do not come with new selfmade objections.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I hope then you do not come with new selfmade objections". You mean Wikipedia policies. We'll just have to wait and see.--Folantin (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not like this, otherwise I would have filed a complaint against you, for your insults.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are joking, pal. Now stop behaving like a troll and get off my talk page. --Folantin (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Slovenia

You seem to know how to deal with fringe theories. Could you please pay attention to Special:Contributions/Marcos G. Tusar and act as you see appropriate? Thanks a lot. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 09:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to join WikiProject Slovenia if you interested. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm not really a great expert on Slovenian history. I was just helping out removing a fringe theory from those pages. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You opposed, but thanks

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks/Wikipedia:WikiProject Berbers

Thank you for weighing in on the Berber Project idea, it looks like you've given that some thought. Also, your userboxes gave me a much needed laugh! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're up and running! Please visit and contribute at Wikipedia:WikiProject Berbers! Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samad Behrangi

Iranchamber.com is by no means a reliable source, it does not conform with the requirements of WP:RS, it doesn't even list an author name...The onus is on the original editor to provide a WP:RS for a claim. I am surprised that you'd even argued against this, given your great contributions and familiarity with Wikipedia rules.--CreazySuit (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't reinstated that information since Wednesday and don't intend to until I have looked into the credibility of the source provided. It seems Iranchamber.com is used on dozens of Wikipedia pages [4], but if it doesn't shape up it must be removed from those too. The Samad Behrangi page could certainly do with some proper referencing though. I merely reverted an editor there who I knew had removed thoroughly reliable information from a page I had worked on. Maybe I was a bit "quick on the draw" but I was annoyed because over the past few months I have maintained the Nader Shah article (along with Agha Nader) I have become thoroughly sick of dealing with people whose sole interest seems to be quarrelling over the ethnicity of figures from Iranian history and who will remove factual information that does not suit their point of view. If there is now a movement to source Iranian history and biography articles in accordance with WP:RS then that's great. I hope you will be remonstrating with others who fail to comply with policy, especially the POV-pushers on either side of the Persian-Azeri/Iranian-Turkic edit wars which seem to be the bane of Wikipedia's Iranian articles. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked Nader Shah and you were right there, that editor should not have removed the sourced info, unless he he had reliable sources to the contrary. But just because an editor is wrong on a page or two, does not mean he or she is always wrong, that's why we should always WP:AGF and treat every edit on its own. Anyways, from what I have read, Samad Behrangi was a communist and did not care much ethnicity or ethnic issues, he wrote most of his books in Persian so that he could reach a wider audience within Iran, otherwise he had at least 4 titles published in Azeri during the same time. Also, I will check those pages you mentioned and remove Iranchamber.com, if it's used as a citation. --CreazySuit (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"But just because an editor is wrong on a page or two, does not mean he or she is always wrong". Given some of the stuff I've seen on other pages, it's more a case of a stopped clock being right twice a day. Anyway, it will be a good thing if the Samad Behrangi article is thoroughly referenced and expanded (the same applies to the other contentious Iranian pages). Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Papachristopoulos

As you were responsible for this report at the Fringe theories noticeboard, I want to make you aware of the current report at the Conflict-of-interest noticeboard, relating to the same individual. Some people never learn. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. I have commented at the page. --Folantin (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment over there. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]