User talk:Dronkle/Archives/2009/September

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dronkle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Tildes!

Peter you can sign with four tildes, like this ~~~~. Best --Kleinzach 10:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pinkwind

I'd nitpick your assertion that the free shows directly led to the name Pinkwind. This was a name specifically used to describe occasions when members of both bands would play onstage at the same time, paid or otherwise. Wwwhatsup 18:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's better. Wwwhatsup 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter!

Fancy meeting you here! I thought I recognised the name. Philip Trueman 12:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Chelsea

The text I removed more or less repeated what was said in the history section, but your idea sounds good, just mentioning the Wembley bit alongside the other "firsts" in the records section.

Sadly I didn't make it to Wemberley yesterday. I had to make do with a series of pubs and bars, but it was still a great day (and night!).

Did you go? SteveO 19:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

SatyrBot

Just to say I am enthusistic about your idea of using Satyrbot. Has there been any progress? Can I help? Best. -- Kleinzach 03:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

G&S

Dear Peter, please do not tag the G&S articles with an opera project tag. We have discussed this in the past with the opera project. The G&S project is a subproject of the opera project anyway, so it is redundant. We have a WP:G&S (G&S project) tag on all articles related to the G&S project, and we assess and watch those articles carefully. There is no reason to add another tag. I am certain that those opera project members who have any interest in G&S already watch the pages that they are interested in there. Also, please let me know before you do anything that changes our categories. Thanks. -- Ssilvers 16:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Prince of Homburg

I added a few links to your article. If you take a look at them, I think you will find some useful info for expanding the article. It's very late, so I was probably not very neat, but there should be some raw material there that you can work with. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 06:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I beefed up the synopsis a bit. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Categories of operatic interest not to be tagged by robot

Would you mind if I mark items on the list which are 100% bona fide opera? I am concerned about our missing large numbers of opera singers. Thanks. -- Kleinzach 03:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've marked all the cats I've been through which are now 100% opera. I haven't done Sopranos and Tenors yet but will try to do them tomorrow. The more I look at the cats the more I see that the popular singers are in the American sopranos, American tenors etc cats. and that very few singers are in the Operatic whatever ones e.g. only one Austrian operatic baritone. Regards, -- Kleinzach 13:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've fnished my work on tenors and edited your list. I've put all the basic voice cats in one list to make it clearer for SatyrTN as he got confused before. (Maybe it would be better to remove the second list to somewhere else completely?).

We have agreement now (I think) for the bot to mark up stubs, but we don't have a template. There was also talk of re-editing the basic opera banner. Would you like to 'chair' this? -- Kleinzach 01:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just seen your other note on the Opera Project talk page. Actually I don't understand about the first run, second run, middle run etc. Can you explain? -- Kleinzach 03:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Silver Tassie

Yes, well, I missed seeing the opera and didn't get round to buying the CDs, so I just looked it over for obvious problems. One thing I did wonder about was whether you really need to redlink all the soloists. Finley should certainly have an article, but will Marc (Mark? not Marq, anyway) LeBrocq ever be sufficiently notable to have a WP entry?

While I'm here, composers/operas listed on your user page that I am interested in are: Donizetti, Dvorak (not Dmitrij), Janacek, Knussen, Smetana (Dalibor, anyway) and Strauss.

And, seeing Neoptolemus lower down reminds me that I'm working intermittently on Rossini's Ermione and will probably put in links from the characters to relevant WP articles. After seeing the opera in the 90s at Glyndebourne I once compiled a table of which Trojan-War-related-characters appeared in which operas (Gluck, Berlioz, Tippett, etc.) Wonder if I've still got it somewhere. --GuillaumeTell 21:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that I've seen (and like, and often have recordings of) the operas that I selected from the ones you listed, and would be happy to help out if you get there first with any of them. From the list above, my particular favourites are everything by Janacek, and Capriccio. --GuillaumeTell 00:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

List of categories for the bot User:Peter cohen/opera categories

May I archive this discussion on the Opera Project now? Thanks. -- Kleinzach 08:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Opera Project Cat List

Thanks for your message. I have now made an entry on the Project page 13.9:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Category_listing

this points to:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Catlist

In order that nothing goes wrong, and to make it as simple as possible for SatyrTN, I have just included the cats for the run. After the bot run it will be become a regular Opera Project page so it will need to be recompiled/re-edited then, subject to your plans to reform the cats etc.

Hope this is all OK with you etc. -- Kleinzach 10:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW I doubt the run can go tomorrow. We still don't have the template for the stub banner and I think we will have the design to discuss. The banners will also have to be OK'd by SatyrTN. -- Kleinzach 10:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. In general I agree with everything though I'm not sure whether we will need the bot again. Much depends on your revamp of the cats and how far it goes. Of course the list is now public so people can use it for their own puposes and may even try to change it. (I can think of at least one person who might use it in a way we haven't intended!). -- Kleinzach 12:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Theobromine GA nomination

Sorry about that; it looks like I never got around to doing it! Thank you for reminding me. I'll let you know when I've added all the things I intended on adding. (messedrocker • talk) 17:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, take a look now. (messedrocker • talk) 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Anything else that needs to be addressed? (messedrocker • talk) 21:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks fine now, but I still think you should bring this up with another reviewer since you technically now have had a role in the article's development. (messedrocker • talk) 00:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Peter

Peter I apologize if this isn't the proper way to respond to your message on my talk page. I'm not sure how to reply from there.

Thanks for your comments and input.

Kind regards, Munatobe7

Thanks for the confirmation about how/where to post to someone. Munatobe7 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

Thanks for locating the reference for 1990. I think there may some kind of error in the formula or something. Notice the "<refref>" that shows up on the main page at the end of the "United States" paragraph in the "Availability & Legality section. I looked at it in the edit screen, but can't tell what's going on and did no want to start deleting things accidently. Munatobe7 20:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Three revert Rule

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Sefringle^Talk 00:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude here (yet I believe it's not against protocol), but the more I try to figure out this whole wiki thing the more confused I get. To me it seems that you, Sefringle, have already violated the same rule you are warning this user about. Are you an administrator of some sort and have they more freedom in editing? I am trying to get some response at your own discussion page but you seem to ignore me, while you are indeed editing at this time. And you tell this user to use the page's talk page yet you yourself do no use this feature. At least tell me if I am on the wrong path here. And again, sorry if I am doing something wrong here but I am confused.66.65.46.186 01:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Complicated stuff this is indeed, 3rr actually means 4 reverts is a violation, I have now learned. Yet this does not mean my other comments are invalid.66.65.46.186 02:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

re:WP:WPO

I do not plan on withdrawing from the project. I do think that I will probably stick more to the classical music WikiProject, though, not just because I have not been met with hostility there (whether deserved hostility or not, Kleinzach has been hostile to me, especially in that he made a public spectacle of me and refused to respond to me even once on my talk page). I would prefer to avoid stress if I can; Wikipedia is not worth it. Anyway, I think WP:CM is not nearly as well-run as WPO and needs my help more than the opera WikiProject (there are articles on each of Mozart's operas, for instance, but there are not articles on each of his symphonies). I suppose my basic preference for working with WP:CM is because the work is needed most there. The personal issues are not nearly as important. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am so sorry

I cannot handle this anymore. Not only am I a very sensitive person and thus maybe not cut out for all the drama here, most importantly: I feel the amount of energy that people spend here, arguing among themselves in mere ones and zeros, is a crime against life itself. This is not what life is supposed to be about, a man is defined by his actions and not by the words that he types. I will not be coming back here anymore.

Thank you for extending the hand of friendship, the above does not in any way refer to people like you, who seem to have a feel for the life that goes on outside the internet. But I think this wiki is just not a good place for me to be right now. I have tried to explain this in a sort of rant on my own talk page but I have no faith it will make any difference to the people who judge themselves solely by their edit counts and their witty typing, the people who have no respect for the dead if they can advance their pov that way. I know everyone wants to belong someplace, but folks, this is a damn computer, not real life!

Inochi mijikashi koi seyo otome (ever seen that film?)

66.65.46.186 21:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Category reform

Hi, I sent you an email a few days ago but maybe it didn't get through. When you have a moment perhaps we can talk about the opera singers categories. Best. -- Kleinzach 01:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

re: Your post on User talk:88.160.247.46

I did perhaps overreact on that one. I was on a vandalism-fixing jag and had probably sunk into a more punitive mentality than I should have. But a quick glance at the IP's contributions shows they've kept on editing as usual, so I don't think we need worry anyone's been frightened into the hills. Ford MF 15:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it. Normally I'm pretty good at not biting newbies, but some days after a couple hundred vandalisms you're just like, WTF is wrong with people? I should bear in mind that at those times I really need to take a break and get some coffee. Ford MF 15:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Troilus

My pleasure.

If you are interested, I could search in my Munich fund, since I probably shooted at leat one among the 1426 and 1700 in the Staatliche Antikensammlungen.

Also note that Louvre E 669 is a very disputed interpretation, since the warrior is actually darding his lance on the snake, which could refer to Kadmos (see Gantz, Ancient Greek Myths). I'll try to shoot the good face of Louvre E 662 the next time I'll go to Louvre. Bibi Saint-Pol (parler) 15:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

G 154 and E 638 are currently in closed rooms (we're still waiting for their reopening since years...). E703 is in the Etruscan rooms, where it's quite impossible to take photos because of the light (no light :). Concerning G 18, I can't find it in the Louvre database, I tend to think it should be in closed rooms too because we covered quite all ceramics on display.

I do care for Munich. Bibi Saint-Pol (parler) 18:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hum, I only found Munich 1722: Image:Akhilleus Troilos Staatliche Antikensammlungen 1722.jpg. Obviously 1426 was not on display, and I didn't locate 1700 (but I will perhaps find it afterwards, it's hard to browse through thumbnails).

Curiously Louvre E 876 is not in the Louvre database too; as this is very rare, I wonder if they are not (both with G 18) in the Louvre's reserves. Bibi Saint-Pol (parler) 20:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wagnerites and Anti-Wagnerites

After a few days' absence from Wikipedia, I only just noticed that the "discussion" has already concluded with a decision to delete. Thank you for venturing forth your reasoned, informed support for the retention of the above categories [1]. Unfortunately you were drowned out this time by the all the trivializing canting by those, who (in the words of two discussants from the CFD that the categories survived over a year ago), "clearly know nothing [or next to nothing] about the subject" [2] and propose deletion just because they do not find the subject interesting [3], and wouldn't relent even if mountains of musicological evidence were presented about its significance. Maybe instead of categories, the section on Richard_Wagner#Wagner.27s_influence_and_legacy should contain a listing, as opposed to mentions within paragraphs, of Wagnerites and Anti-Wagnerites. Please let me know if you have any ideas. Defrosted 23:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fontaine je ne boirai pas de ton eau

Hi,

I shot Louvre E 662 yesterday, but the result is far from perfect since this face of the dinos is in a very bad exposition and is broken anyway in the middle of the scene:

There appears to be no more items showing Troilus currently on display in the Louvre. We'll have to search in other museums! Cheers. Bibi Saint-Pol (parler) 20:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it

I apologise as well. Regards, Amoruso 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Use this tag ~~.---~~ and delete the whole thing like that. It's the best elegant way, if you want to remove it or it makes you feel uncomfortable. Amoruso 14:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

for your note on my user page. Apologies for not replying till now -- I've been a bit busy! I'll look at that Homeric query tomorrow, I promise. Andrew Dalby 20:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know that I can help much. The word has been unclear for 2650 years ... The commentary you kindly transcribed for me says, "fighting from horses or taking pleasure in horses". That commentator, then, doesn't even consider the meaning Liddell and Scott give the word, which is (in Homer, so they say) "one who fights from a chariot". And their interpretation goes back at least as far as Vergil, it would seem, since Vergil (a good student of the Iliad) described Troilus as a charioteer. On the other hand, Aeschylus, much earlier than Vergil, took the word to mean roughly "horse-rider" and used it in that sense in the Persae.

Why the problem?

First because of hippio-. hippo- should mean "... horse(s)"; hippio- should mean "... something horsy". It made sense, therefore, for Vergil to interpret the latter as "... chariots", which are relevant to battlefields and are drawn by horses. However, other meanings could be imagined; and it was also legitimate to think that the -i- is there simply to save the metre (hippocharmes wouldn't fit into a hexameter), as evidently Aeschylus and many commentators have thought; in that case we come back to the meaning of hippo- "... horse(s)".
Second because of -charmes , because charma means "joy", charme means "lust of battle and victory"; both are ancient poetic words, and the compound could draw implications from either (clearly they are connected anyway). So we can imagine it to mean "taking joy in ..." or "deriving war-lust and victory from ...".

So this is one of the many words in the Iliad for which no certain explanation can be given. I would say (some might not) that the poet had often no clear idea of the meanings of such words. This word belonged with Troilus, and in it went.

I've no idea whether that helps ...! Andrew Dalby 20:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

<Μήστορα τ' ἀντίθεον καὶ Τρωΐλον ἱππιοχάρμην:> ἐντεῦθεν Σοφοκλῆς ἐν Τρωΐλῳ (T.G.F. p. 266 n. = II p. 253 P.)φησὶν αὐτὸν λοχηθῆναι ὑπὸ Ἀχιλλέως ἵππους γυμνάζοντα παρὰ τὸ Θυμβραῖον καὶ ἀποθανεῖν. ὑπονοήσειε δ' ἄν τις τὸν Μήστορα πρεσβύτατον εἶναι τῶν Πριαμιδῶν, καὶ τὸν Τρωΐλον οὐ παῖδα, διότι ἐν τοῖς ἀρίστοις καταλέγεται. T

Here Sophocles in Troilus says that he [T] was ambushed by Achilles when he [T] was exercising his horses beside the Thymbraion, and died. One might suppose that Mestor was the oldest of the Priamids, and Troilus not a boy, because he is listed among the "best".

Scholion S-I24257b. Source: Aristonicus Τρωΐλον ἱππιοχάρμην: ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ εἰρῆσθαι ἱππιοχάρμην τὸν Τρωΐλον οἱ νεώτεροι ἐφ' ἵππου διωκόμενον αὐτὸν ἐποίησαν. καὶ οἱ μὲν παῖδα αὐτὸν ὑποτίθενται, Ὅμηρος δὲ διὰ τοῦ ἐπιθέτου τέλειον ἄνδρα ἐμφαίνει· οὐ γὰρ ἄλλος ἱππόμαχος λέγεται. A

Because Troilus is called hippiocharmes, more recent [poets] have depicted him as pursued on horseback. Some describe him as a boy, but Homer by means of the epithet makes clear he was a full-grown man; he does not [i.e. could not?] describe one who was not [a full-grown man] as "horse-warrior".

Note that "horse-warrior" may or may not be intended as a precise rendering of hippiocharmes: it could just be intended to pick up the obvious implications of the word. I think. Andrew Dalby 09:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy-editing, as requested

Peter, I have begun the process of copy-editing and proofreading; I have confined myself to only minor changes, such as typographical errors and grammar, since I think that you are best placed to make more fundamental changes if any are needed. Really, that is all that it needs for the most part. I disagree with what the GA reviewer wrote about "colloquial language", though he makes some good observations elsewhere.

I am fussy about punctuation, but I held off from "correcting" the formatting of possesives, since we disagree about that; it would be silly of me to be a pain in the arse about it! I have left a few HTML comments where they are pertinent with regard to one example of essay-like text, quote formatting and your use of indenting, for which there may be a better alternative. With my time being limited, I got as far as "The story of Troilus in the medieval and Renaissance eras" before business demands took over, but I'll try to scan over the remainder soon.

One thing that the GA reviewer has not mentioned, but that I would like to see, is the separation of footnotes between notes and references. This can be done easily by using {{note}} templates and makes the notes (which are more important to the reader) more accessible.

Potentially the biggest issue is the article's length, but whether it is possible to address this is a question that you are probably best placed to answer. You might be able to make some of the prose more pithy; you may be able to fork some more content; or remove any duplication that may exist. A significant reduction may not be possible without harming the content, in which case, at least the length can be justified. Excellent work on your part, I must say. That was, I think, the toughest GA review that I can recall. Adrian M. H. 22:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note. So you have real work too, huh? So do I, and I am pretty much at the same point you are. I gotta pretty much put that article on the backburner myself :(. In a sense, I already know the salient points, esp. with the new release of the letters. I bet that serves to crack open the Mother Teresa reality distortion field a little bit.

I really have not been that active on Wikipedia, and I just learned of the draconian image deletion policy change that has taken place, and I have a hard time investing energy into something that raises a policy over providing quality information to people. I can not see how this policy is not fatally flawed. Anyway, sometimes you just have to walk away for while, and that may be the case with the Mother Teresa article. (and maybe Wikipedia in general if they don't fix things). I certainly did enjoy your input and do appreciate your meaningful contribution there.

At the current state, I do not see this as the most productive use of my time. Also, I do not (never did) like the adversarial nature of the editing process. I don't think that citzendium has much of a chance for various reasons. No matter what it will be a while before that project gets going. I probably will be spendingerrr wasting my time over at wikipedia talk:Non-free_content_criteria, trying to effect a little change. But I'm not hopeful. Maybe I'm being short-sighted, but I have a hard time seeing how things will change.

Anyway, nice meeting you, and thanks for letting me use your user space as couch. :) Nodekeeper 15:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Hi Fayssal, I see you're back on the MT talk page. There seems to be something about how the page is functioning that gets people angry very soon after they get there. I only joined a few days before you and you can see some of the things I said if you look at the history.

My post at Talk:Mother Teresa#What to say about the journals? was actually intended to get people talking systematically about what points should be covered and before moving onto how to phrase things. I obviously did something wrong because it is not getting the response I hoped. But if you are able to come up with things I've not thought of, suggest the best quotations to use etc., then please add them below my comment.--Peter cohen 22:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Thanks for your message. Actually i was coming from ANI while tracing a case involving User:Mutwandi and User:Phral to find out that Phral wikistalked Mutwandi until he reverted his edit at Mother Teresa w/o any edit summary, no discussion for his first ever edit at MT article. Well, as an admin i had to check whether Mutwandi was trolling or Phral being disruptive. What i did i typed "Mother Teresa letter" on google news to see it was only Time magazine or some others. Well, a found a few. It means plain disruption for what he got an immediate 24h block . What followed was another indef block by another admin Haemo as a sock of a banned user who created havoc today at the ANI.

So what i did is to keep the material but this time w/ what i found and put it very neutral as per [WP:NPOV]. The articles were more POV. Later on Anietor tries to mislead me and everybody. Look at what he wrote in his edit summary Move reference to letters/diary to Spirituality section. In fact he moved nothing but reverted me and restored half of what had been there before Phral plus a new reference of hims talk about everything except the "doubts". I tried to merge w/ a proper section and get rid of the "controversy" title. I indeed left what he had edited earlier. Wasn't that a consensus/deal. Not for him, he reverted again. Jesus!!!! I didn't come there to edit war. I don't know how to edit war. That i didn't like and expressed it immediately at the talk page. I left and came today directly to talkpage and i m sorry if i was a bit too offensive but you already now know why. It was more a misguidance of the part of Anietor to deal w/ the issue. Something like [WP:OWN] coupled w/ aggressive POV pushing and edit warring. But at least i meant i won't get back to that issue and i am sorry for the mess. I was just tracing a dispute as an admin and well i'll of course leave it there. I am unprotecting the article of course. I really appreciate you contacting me Peter. Happy editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for your reply. You'll have seen that I too have problems with Anietor misleading comments e.g.:

Claiming he's been exonerated by Wikiadmins over the 3RR that is still open. Personally, I think an official admin warning for him and Sfacets over their 3RR breaking might have made them both less complacent about it being everybody's fault but theirs.
Implying that the Good article reviews said that there was no need for more coverage of criticism. Several reviewers said that there should be.
Various other edit summaries which did far more than they said.

Add you make the third person I know who came with good faith from and admin or review page and then got hauled into the poisonous goings on. Anyway, good to do business with you, --Peter cohen 13:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've got a question for you as an admin as I didn't get a reply from the admin who closed my sockpuppetry allegations. How would you advice me in future to deal with an account with this sort of edit history [4]? Note particularly the use of acronyms by a supposed neophyte and the rush into the middle of a revert war. Thanks--Peter cohen 17:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Could you please give me diffs to all what you are referring to above? I mean starting from the admin who EXONERATED him to the various EDIT SUMMARIES. That would help for verification. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Wagner Project

We are getting back into this. Would you like to join in? The assessments page is here. -- Kleinzach 00:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion

Hi Peter Cohen. Tiamat is a goddess of the ancient world, of I believe Sumerian provenance. It's not my real name. I thought the most common spelling for her when I registered was Tiamut, and was going to start an article on her (thinking there wasn't one) until I found Tiamat. Then I changed the transliteration of my own user name. But I think I should just change it back, since it's just getting confusing for people. Thanks for asking. Tiamat 15:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we delete this list

Some people are selective they would like to see only lists of their own domination, what do u think does this list warrant deletion or should we let it stay?[5]--יודל 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 11:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to join opera project

Hello. I go by the name IvanVelikii. I am contacting you about an offer to join the opera project. I don't know if modifying this page is a way to reply. I hope so. I thought I would like to join. However after seeing the changes that are being made to my work on Smetana, which I began without knowing that these articles were being discussed in your community, and noticing the comments made about the Boris Godunov (opera) article, on which I have worked diligently and in which I take pride (even if it does not conform to wikipedia standards), I am not so sure I should contribute anymore. I see my work being described as poorly written and unorganized. This is not true. The aricle is indeed long (but relevant, so that should be a good thing), and not sourced (I am contemplating remedying this), however it is factually correct, is accompanied by relevant graphics, and is logically organized (but perhaps not Wikipedia style - that is a plus too sometimes). I labored on this article all by myself until this Jonyungk guy started changing the article, often not for the better, adding text that is often not objective and is full of spelling errors, and yet he is saying my article is poorly written and is a complete mess. Here is how it looked before changes were made. If this is the thanks I get for creating one of the most comprehensive opera articles on wikipedia, then again, I not sure I should join or even continue to contribute to wikipedia. Changes are inevitable, but to work so long and hard only to see your work sliced up is disheartening. Where were these people when the article needed to be written in the first place? Here is how it looked before I started. A team of Italian wikipedians liked my work enough to copy much of it verbatim, translating it into Italian, and they won article of the month. Ivan Velikii 23:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes Ivan, replying to a person's talk page is generally the best way to draw their attention. I have replied to the main substance of your post on your own talk page.--Peter cohen 13:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Die Feen

Dear Peter: Where do you see that I added any reference to Die Feen? I just checked my 3 edits, and they do not include adding a reference (I did add a tag to indicate that more secondary references were needed, but it was promptly removed).

I see that you added a lot of content to the article. However, before nominating the article as a WP:GA, I suggest more careful copy editing (just quickly glancing at the article, I saw that the very first sentence lacks a period, and I spotted two words that were run together), adding many more wikilinks, and conforming the capitalization in the headings to the WP:MOS. Also, I suggest moving the list of recordings to the "Performance and Recording History" section, adding more inline references (especially where a statement is attributed to others, such as "Although the music of Die Feen shows the influences of Weber and other composers of the time, commentators have recognised embryonic features of the mature Wagnerian opera."), and removing all the redlinks from the premier cast (no reason to believe that they each warrant a Wikipedia article). Also, many of the Notes and Sources need to be conformed to proper bibliographic citation style; I suggest using citation templates, because they promote consistent style and completeness. Good luck! Finell (Talk) 18:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Peter: Just so we're clear, I had nothing to do with the references, never looked at them, and do not know what is in them. So I'm not ducking your original question, but I am not in a position to answer it. Assuming that the works in the current Sources section were actually used by prior contributors to the article as sources for statements made in the article, you would NOT be justified in relegating these works to a Further Reading or External Links section without first checking the sources and determining (if it is the case) that the sources in fact do not substantiate statements in the article. Statements in the lead, particularly attributed ones, require citation there; it is not enough that the citations come in a later section. Best wishes, Finell (Talk) 17:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 11:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

GA/R re-review?

Since your initial GA/R of Bringin' on the Heartbreak, significant strides have been made in the article, and as the original nominator, I believe the article is now up to GA standards. So, I'd appreciate it if you could re-review the article real quick and change your vote if you feel it's up to par. Thanks! Drewcifer 04:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Sophocles

Are you sure about that, Peter? It looks like vandalism to me! Philip Trueman 18:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Fair enough. You could actually have selected the last good version from the article history (you'd get a warning that you are looking an older version) and then edited that. Then you could have saved it without making any changes to it but with a suitable edit summary. This can be speeded-up into a one-click action using WP:POP, which I strongly recommend. Philip Trueman 19:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

congrats on Troilus

Congrats on this GA rating: "Troilus reassessed from B-Class (Mid-Class) to GA-Class (Mid-Class)" I can see how much you put into this one. Goldenrowley 23:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Die Hochzeit

We have one stub, one start on this one. Can you decide it? Thanks. -- Kleinzach 22:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

New antisemitism

If you think I was wrong, revert my deletion. Please consider that this is a very contentious article that has been the subject of countless edit wars, and a banner at the top of the Talk page says:

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.

Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.

Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles.

My edit summary said the same thing: "please discuss significant changes on the Talk page". Again, if you think I was wrong, revert me. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You were right, Peter, I should have left a better explanation of why I removed the section. After posting this message, I left a message at User talk:Thegoodson#New antisemitism explaining what I did and why, and I copied and pasted his contribution to Talk:New antisemitism#Section on Germany so that other editors could discuss it. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 03:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Prince Igor

Hello Peter. Thank you for the welcome back. It's nice to be back. It is difficult to get Wikipedia out of one's system. Sorry to barge into the Prince Igor article while you were working. I wanted to make only a few changes, and then could not stop. I'm not completely happy with my recent contribution to the Performance Practice section, but will tweak it over time. I see you intend to fill out the Synopsis. I think that is a good idea, as it needs bulking up. I plan to rewrite the Composition History, add some pictures, and want to make a sortable Structure table that lists all the opera's numbers, the order the numbers occupy in both the traditional RK/Glazunov Version and the Hypothetical Original Version, the dates where available, the composer or arranger, and the orchestrator. That should fun. I've seen sortable tables and want try it out. If it doesn't work, I'll delete it. If you have any suggestions, I will listen. I like what you did with the references/citations. That is something I can learn. I tried to cite my recent additions for once, and have made some progress. Ivan Velikii 02:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In reply to your question: Yes, I have a libretto for the Rimsky-Korsakov/Glazunov Edition. The differences are not great. I can fill you in, just let me know when you get there. Ivan Velikii 23:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Siegfried Idyll

Peter, can you 'adjudicate'? We differed on this one. -- Kleinzach 14:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Parsifal

Peter, this is a GA - and once again please sign your comments! -- Kleinzach 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The assessment is quite different from a peer review. Once an article gets to GA it's been reviewed and there isn't any point in doing a (relatively superficial) rating. (The GA trumps the assessment obviously.) I see you haven't contributed to the article so you would qualify as a reviewer for A class and potentially FA. You would need to discuss it with the main author - Dogbertd. -- Kleinzach 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:GAR

I have noticed that you are a frequent reviewer at that Good Articles project. good article reassessment is experiencing a considerable backlog problem. There are several articles dating from August that still have not generated enough discussion to close. Could you please take a look at the oldest articles and make some fresh comments on them? Please note that some of these have undergone signigicant changes since they first came to GA/R; please judge the article only on its merits as of its current version. If you reviewed an earlier version of any of these articles, please also consider re-reading them and either revise or endorse any earluer comments you have made. Thanks for your help with this! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Winifred Wagner

Another for your adjudication - see Talk:Winifred Wagner/Comments. -- Kleinzach 23:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

And Siegfried (Talk:Siegfried Wagner/Comments)! --GuillaumeTell 10:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessments notice draft

My draft for the notice to go on the Opera project is here. Please let me know what you think. -- Kleinzach 05:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

There are only about 480 composers compared to 1,100 to 1,200 operas. Anyway that's not really the point as we need to focus on the present stage - which is the draft. -- Kleinzach 13:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've consolidated everything on my talk page. -- Kleinzach 23:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen/Comments

My apologies. The page has been restored. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Rosalind Plowright discussion

Hi Peter. I am responsible for the content of Rosalind Plowright's entry. Apologies if this contravenes your rules but I have no idea how Wiki works. The statements I made are factual. The additions entered by others are not only not factual, they are untrue and therefore I keep editing them. RP was fully engaged from 1979 to the present day. If you want a complete list of her engagements from 1988 to 1996 I can provide it but it is extensive. The photo is copyright of Fritz Curzon and we have his permission to reproduce it for no fee on Wiki. What else do you need to know? Please feel free to contact me. Tony Kaye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rplowright (talk • contribs) 19:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Literature proposal

Hey! Awadewit recommended you to me as someone who may be interested in the new Literature wikiproject. The proposal for the project is here. Please consider joining. Wrad 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

T and C

I have started mining my friends for sources for Troilus and Criseyde. I added a few books to the page today. My library owns all of these, happily. I haven't started plowing through the long list of books that comes up under T and C in the online catalogue, but I will do that soon. Awadewit | talk 06:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Bayreuth canon

A tag has been placed on Bayreuth canon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition that has been transwikied and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gtstricky (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Back to Troilus

Hi,

Good news: I finally succeed in taking pictures in the Etruscan rooms in the Louvre. For sure, quality is not stellar but it's tolerable. So here are:

Louvre E 703 (detail and full);
Louvre CA 6529 (Achilles and Athena, Troilus).

Enjoy! Bibi Saint-Pol (parler) 13:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Chamberlain

Hi Peter, I very much appreciate your input on the Talk:Houston Stewart Chamberlain page. There have been a few more exchanges, and I've made some more arguments, dug up sources, etc... and the more I learn, the more I feel that the article really is an aberrant piece of historical revisionism - in fact, much of the text is lifted from the Houston Chamberlain fansite and the glowing introduction to the 1911 English translation of his book. Somehow, along the way, I have recused myself from editing it further (I really don't like these confrontations and this is very far from my fields of academic interest) but perhaps you would consider providing some content to bring it more in-line with standard historical interpretation? Or you might have some ideas as to how to engage editors with a possible vested interest? Maybe I am a fringe lunatic, but if the article persists as it stands because of the strong will of one editor, then that really seems to be a failure of the Wikipedia model. Please, let me know if you have any questions/comments. Best, Eliezg (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your response. i wrote something back on my talk page. i totally understand if you don't want to have anything to do with this. Eliezg (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

David Irving, British English, etc.

Thanks for your kind note. Regarding ENGVAR, it says "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic." I didn't imagine that anyone British would actually want to claim the Irving article based on "strong national ties". In any event, most of the original changes were made in direct quotes; regardless of the English variant, one doesn't change direct quotes.

Thanks also for you suggestion that I visit the Talk:Houston Stewart Chamberlain page, I will try to take a look at it, time permitting. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at the page and commented. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

More Chamberlain

Did you mean to revert here? The contribution is clearly not vandalism. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter ... I think it's great that you did a mass revert. I'm looking forward to the fact that the ensuing discussion on the Talk Page will be on the merits of the contributions to the article itself. Ordinarily you are right that sarcasm is not a solution, but I am hoping that the tactic, while perhaps a little crude, will bring some meaningful change. Best wishes, Eliezg (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Peter. The problem with ever being sarcastic is that one risks never being believed again. I just want to make double sure that you know that I really do believe you did the right thing to revert my contribution and that everything worked out pretty well on the Chamberlain talk page, thanks in large part to your input. Thanks for helping keep my faith in the Wiki-process alive. Best, Eliezg (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Troilus in Italy

I could not help swinging through Perugia in search of the Euphronius vase (it is in storage but available on request) but came across another interesting - if late - piece. It is now up here, maybe you can use it for the article. Haiduc (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, no Troilus suggestions

None. I'm not a big fan of Wickedpedia, in part because of the work-to‑noise ratio; spend my time working on my own site (LacusCurtius). More to your point, I'm only at best very tangentially interested in things Greek, Homer, etc. therefore am hardly competent in the matter; I just happened to be passing by, popping in links to Dio since that author had not been online and I'm putting him up these days. Best, Bill (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

List of anarchists

Yo Peter, I think the fact that the periodical was run by Ret Marut and that it was anarcho-pacifist is inappropriate for the Format field because, well, it doesn't tell the reader anything about the format of the periodical. If you look at the other entries on the list, the Format field is generally reserved for the regularity of publication e.g. daily/biannual/quarterly and the publication type e.g. magazine/tabloid/newspaper. Regards, Skomorokh ^confer 21:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

8th London WIkipedia Meetup: POSTPONED!

Hi! I've decided to postpone the meetup pending a new date, as too many regulars / people who signed up have said that they will not likely make it. Please go over to the talk page and let's discuss a new date! Poeloq (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Carloss Latuff

Thanks :) - Revolving Bugbear 12:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

Hey Peter, What you suggest is very nice. But what El Greco writes in Lefka / TRNC page is completely false. El Greco writes "Turks converted Catholics to Islam". In islam, however, NO obligatory action towards making people islam is tolerable. People can only choose islam voluntarily according to islam religion. Turks dominated East Europe for 500 years and did NOT force any body to convert islam. Even in Todays Turkey, there are many christians in some cities like Mardin, and Turkey protects their culture and religion. Consider the Balkans (Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Greece, Romania, Bosnia,...) remained Turkish teritory for 450 years and there were no wars between these etnic groups since Turks behaved equally to all these groups. After 1900 (End of Turkish Dominance), the number of wars between these etnic groups are considerably huge. Also, Serbs speaks serbish, Croats speaks Croatish, Greece speaks Grek, etc.. In other words, Turks protected the languages and cultures of these minorities for almost 450 years. If this minorities were occupied by an emperialist country and remained 450 years in hands of that emperialist country there would be no Greece, Serb, Croat culture...Also, El Greco made 3RR rule meaningless in Lefka subject 88.252.64.238 (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A new Oxbridge user box

Peter cohen...I am currently in the process of writing a user box for all of the colleges that are part of Oxbridge. This template is meant to replace your current college template. Please take a look at the work in progress and comment on it. My main concerns are college abbreviations and color choice. I am using scarf colors for the colleges. Thank you. - LA @ 16:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop the War Coalition

Hello! An article that has sections (almost) without citations, "citation needed" notices, and uncited estimates of numbers participating in rallies, falls short of the second point of WP:GACR. As far as content is concerned, it is quite OK (although some minor copyediting for style wouldn't hurt) but I fear I am no expert on the subject (so that I could comment on points 3 and 4). I merely downgraded it from WPMILHIST B-class (not GA) according to WPMILHIST rules: too few citations, no B-class. Perhaps I was a bit harsh - after all, B-class is a rather lenient category - but in other cases, this has spurred editors to add missing citations & references to otherwise very good articles, thus greatly improving them. If the issue is addressed, I can restore B-class (as mentioned, I am not sure I am qualified to assess it as GA). I intend to wait a few days in case someone corrects the deficiencies before going to GAR. Regards, Cplakidas (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please sort out overzealous auto-block

Autoblocking all users of an IP address because someone didn't like a user name. Bit over-zealous isn't it?--Peter cohen (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

These things happen accidently sometimes. I am sorry you got caught by it. I have lifted the autoblock, and removed the unblock notice to hide your IP address. You should now be free to edit. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Singer categories

Hello! This is just a note to say we are now going ahead with your idea of moving singers into operatic cats. (e.g. 'Category:Sopranos' to 'Category:Operatic sopranos' see Singer categories. Best and regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

More care needed

"rvv" means revert vandalism. In my experience, long-standing administrators who leave rationales on the talk page for their edits are not actually considered vandals, and calling them such is usually considered a bit off. I could have used a better edit summary, mind. Guy (Help!) 09:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

State terrorism

Please discuss changes on talk please.Ultramarine (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

See the talk page. Please give a diff explaining your revert.Ultramarine (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

One showing that "other editors have made changes in the mean time that have nothing to do with the issue that they are arguing about".Ultramarine (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wagner's Rhinemaidens

Thank you for your note. I did the Rhinemaidens article because they stand alone among the Ring characters in being essentially Wagner's inventions rather than drawn from the Eddas. I had noticed previously that Ring character articles tend to deal with the mythical figures rather than Wagner's characterisations - for example links to Wotan, Alberich, etc don't at present bring you to any discussion, indeed mention, of Wagner's creations. This is a field in which I have vaguely thought I might do some further work, although I am a bit burdened with projects at the moment. With this proviso I would be happy to join the Wagner project, even if more as an interested observer than an active participant for the time being. Incidentally, the Rhinemaidens article is a GA nomination and if any opera-minded editor would like to give it the once-over....well, it's there. Brianboulton (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hummus bi tahini

So named partly to point out that the article really is hummus bi tahini, and what I find lacking in the history and such is the mention of the tahini. Which is why I sought out the information of the two main parts of the dish. What you and others have dealt with for the most part is the most of the other than chickpea ingredients for the recipe, but the ingredient which makes it what it is is the sesame paste. --Dumarest (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

Wikipedian London Meetup

I am pretty sure that there are some Wikipedian under the age of 18 who want to go to a Wikipedian meetup but are too young. Why should a Wikipedian meet should take place at a bar. Couldn't it take place else where? 81.86.68.253 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC) registered as Troop350 Troop350 User talk

How is it debatable? Just read the shooting of Jean's article. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, fair enough. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Cafeterias, cafes, restaurants, meeting rooms would all be suitable places.--81.86.68.253 (talk) 19:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC) Registered as Tyw7 Tyw7 Talk

May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Gridlock (Doctor Who), but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. —TreasuryTag—t—c 11:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hummus history

We are both in this - check out the history section of the hummus article, and comments on my collection of the history section and your piece and mine is there asking for comments!! --Dumarest (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Reminder Sunday Lunchtime

Just a reminder about Wikipedia:Meetup/London 10 See you Sunday 1p.m.! -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re reporting that phrase, which I won't repeat.

Dear Peter, on principle I hate reporting people: they called it 'pimping' when I was a boy, and punished the pimp as much as the person reported. But I make an exception for things like antisemitism, where the use of ethnophobic slang is directly correlated historically to death-wishes against others. Still, I don't know how to report people, make diffs, etc. I think at the least that some administrator on the site (and there are several) should have made a severe note on that person's page, and at least slapped a notification on the I/P editors page dealing with infractions. RegardsNishidani (talk) 08:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I have put my own comment in. I still can't understand why administrators have not acted promptly. Things like that should be met with immediate, automatic measures like suspension. Best wishes Nishidani (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A small favour

Peter, I wonder if I could ask you a small favour, without canvassing for your contribution to a discussion on the relevant page. A brief note on mine, for my illumination is all I ask for.

It is a matter of English usage, and since you are a native speaker, and have a philosophy background (I presume that includes the splendid English tradition of linguistic philosophy at Oxford), your opinion will weigh heavily with me.

I found the phrase:'eight Palestinians were killed — including multiple family members of seven-year-old Huda Ghaliya' Gaza beach blast (2006).

I instinctively bridled at this. Huda Ghaliya was the family's one surviving member. But, I asked myself, how can one speak of 'multiple family members of a child' (think in terms of set theory, alone, and it is odd). It seems unequivocably solecistic. I made a note to the editors who are working on the page, editors in dispute, but who both have difficulty in seeing the point I made. Formally, 'family members of a person (child or not)' does not make coherent sense to me. In fact it has bizarre implications. 'The members of a person are, in English usage, surely only 'limbs'. I think they meant to say something like: 'several members of the family of the surviving child Huda Ghaliya'.

Sorry for the disturbance, and imposition. At my age, and having lived most of my life outside English-speaking countries, I occasionally suspect I may be losing touch with my mother-tongue. But surely not on this? Best regards Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks indeed for that, Peter. The wreckage of age, then, has not yet burnt out those primary synapses that deal with grammar! I have not heard of Hinton, but a friend of mine is writing a book on Meinong, who is far more familiar to me. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RSUE

You may be interested in this proposal to revise the text for articles using non-English sources. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Support your removal of the "trivia" on the Kiri Te Kanawa article

Viva-Verdi (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Morning!

Hope you got back to wherever you live okay. The albums I was going to recommend were The Sky Moves Sideways by Porcupine Tree, which is, as I said, WYWH part 2, and Sing to God by Cardiacs, which is bastardised pop/punk/prog. I think you'll like them if you're a prog/punk fan as you said. Are there any plans set up for next months meet regarding date/time, or will it be the same second-sunday format? Regards, Ironho lds 06:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Early to rise, early to bed is me. And thanks for the SF group email! I can't wait to get back to uni; because i'll no longer be employed on sundays i'll actually get to the meet earlier from pompey than from london :P. WilliamH and I both forgot your e-mail addy, by the way; care to send it my way? Thanks. Ironho lds 14:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll stick it up in a bit. You remember my first name, I take it? you can email me at web@(myfirstname)keyes.com. Ironho lds 18:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Righto, got my email set up here. Ironho lds 17:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to Wikipedia meetup in London

Wikimedia UK logo

Date: 13:00 onwards, Sunday 10 August 2008

Venue: Penderel's Oak pub, Holborn WC1 map

More information: Wikipedia:Meetup/London 12

Hello,

I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.

If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.

The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!

Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please forgive the slightly impersonal mass-invite!

JIDF

Hi Peter Please explain in more details why you removed Dr. Obler paper--Puttyschool (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, regarding Oboler's "zionism on the web" - however, i think you might not be describing it correctly as a "campaigning site." What do you mean by that?--Einsteindonut (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Tip

Thank you Peter...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look MT?

Hi Peter, I was wondering if you can take a look at Mother Teresa. I recombined the praise and criticism into a Reception section. Haven't removed content, just tried to weave it together so that the article isn't balkanized (pardon the pun.) Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi there Peter. Since you have commented on a recent case, could you please have your say here? Thanks. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 05:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Your request

As a non-admin, I can only see part of the evidence on the case. I therefore don't feel in a position to produce a definitive judgment one way or the other. You've come to a decision and presumably if the individual behind Nobody of Consequence re-offends, then his previous will be taken into account even if the link is not visible to the rest of us. If it doesn't give away too much, could you add information to the IPCOLL battle report page.

Igt the impression than Saxophone may be a more real account than ED for that particular user. If you are in communication with him, then you rpesumably can decide which to unblock in the longer term.

And I'm still happy that I supported you for Arbcom.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter. First, thanks for your trust and support. I appreciate that.

In fact, I am in contact with Einsteindonut in private. Of course, the ArbCom has all details of both cases.

I fully understand your concerns very well Peter. At the absence of complete evidence people use to have legitimate questions. I'd have done the same... ask and present my concerns. I hope my following points would help clarify the whole issue and give you some answers:

I'll start with this... True, what I posted on AN is my decision. However, as you may understand from there, those decisions can be challenged, tweaked, changed depending on people's opinions. We could have just decided it in private (ArbCom). At the opposite, I have tried to involve as much people as possible. I've sent requests to a dozen of people who had commented on the issue before - including you. Between that and taking action, I received his confessions and explanations which I posted on the board. I then took action because of those new developments. An action was needed to be taken while waiting for the community's input. Discussions could follow. The discussions are still open out there. For instance - and regardless of the lack of complete evidence, people can still judge the case based on what we have as public knowledge. All what I have done is to try to balance between transparency, decision sharing and privacy. This is not an easy task Peter. One must be very careful. Any small mistake and you'd be in big troubles. In brief, the decision is still up to the community. I took action and have no single problem if people decide otherwise. I've never argued about people opposing my decisions (I argued sometimes but against tiny minority views on my decisions). But telling people that it is a decision set on a stone would be nonsense, especially when it is not an ArbCom decision.

CheckUsers have confirmed my findings.

The ArbCom is fully aware of all particular details of this whole case (Einsteindonut's case included).

Most of relevant details are public knowledge. IP attacks are public knowledge. NoC's contributions are public knowledge. You can see NoC here here reporting an anti-semite incident. The other account I blocked (referred to as Z) is also public knowledge (it was first limited to admins since it was used to redirect the now deleted NoC's userpage once) and it can be found on my blocking log. He did the same (check contribs) and everyone - including unregistered users - can verify. The account I left did the same as well and it is private knowledge (only ArbCom and CheckUsers know about it and consequently its contributions). I, therefore, believe that there's no need for the community to worry about the absence of complete evidence.

...if he re-offends... Well, the reply to that is obvious... He'd be re-offended (sorry for the term - it is only a figurative one since ethically, administrators should never offend but block) by being out of Wikipedia forever. For now, evidence above suggests that he is more an anti-antisemite than an anti-semite. wp:AGF wins for now. Is this nonsense?

For the rest (very important)... These are very sensitive cases Peter. The sensitivity is related to the privacy of both users. I, of course, understand and totally agree with the basis of these privacy concerns. Both users have requested their privacy to be protected. They both have legitimate concerns (I won't enter in details but possible RL threats and harassment is a major concern for both of them - i.e. Nazi and Jihadist issues). Naturally, I have given them positive responses. This may sound moot since Wikipedia, by default, has the obligation to protect all its users with all possible manners. I am just saying it for the record.

I'll be posting a very important note at wp:IPCOLL. However, and before doing that, I have promised Einsteindonut to review his case. I'll start doing this tonight. I'll be needing help and I'd appreciate if you can contact me via e-mail. Your insights will be very welcomed.

P.S. How come you are not an admin Peter? -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, how are you? You were sorely missed at the meetup, mainly for bragging purposes; after our discussion about the Stewards of the Manor of Northstead and Chiltern Hundreds I took it as a personal challenge to improve them; I've completed the list of Northstead stewards and it's currently up for FL. I hope you'll leave feedback even if it's a "list of things that you've done wrong" :). Ironho lds 21:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Jew - religion/ethnicity/people?

In my experience it's almost always non-Jews who deny Jewish peoplehood, particularly those trying to score political points vis-à-vis Zionism and Israel. That said, the concept of a "half-Jew" is very strange (either one is a Jew or one is not) and the claims that Jews were only a religious group was espoused in the early 20th century by classical Reform. Who is it in particular that you are concerned about? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg here. And I know exactly who it is you are talking about and I do not believe he is Jewish, nor do I feel that he deserved clemency for what he did to my account and to the JIDF article. (Sorry just felt like interjecting my opinion on the matter...) If you are interested in discussing it further outside of WP, let me know. --Einsteindonut (talk) 16:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Where is he appealing for clemency? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a current issue any more, though. Anyway, it's hard to tell whether or not people are what they claim. I recall an editor who posted some arguably antisemitic comments in the past, realized he had gone to far, and suddenly posted "this user is of Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry" infobox on his page, as if to immunize himself from the backlash. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Voting is open :-)

A warm hello to all those signed up as guarantor members of the soon-to-be-rebooted UK chapter! Voting is now open over at meta - there's tons of information online over there, and the mailing list has been very active too. Discussion, comment (and even the inevitable technical gremlins!) are most welcome at the meta pages, otherwise please do send in your vote/s, and tell a friend about the chapter too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)I'm not actually involved in the election workings, and am just dropping these notes in to help try and spread the word :-) I welcome any or all comment too, but 'election related' stuff really is better suited to the meta pages :-)

Challenor

Well, I'd done a bit of digging after first reading the Guardian obit, but had only had time to get as far as creating a redirect to the Operation Speedwell article (which I now realise had had a large chunk of the Telegraph obit copied into it). The rating will probably improve to a B if we up the citation density a little bit, and mentioning something about his later life will probably help to, just so as people know what did for the thirty years or so from leaving the police until his death. I have just added a snippet about him working for the solicitors who defended him, but more in that direciton would begood. I think the more in depth stuff, reading the books etc would only be necessary to push it up to Good Article and higher. David Underdown (talk) 10:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

wikimedia UK 2.0 Vote

Hi you signed up as being interested in being a memeber of wikimedia UK 2.0. Just a reminder the that the vote for the inital board at m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Vote ends next Saturday (September 25th).Geni 03:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera and our standpoint in consensus

Hi, I don’t know how to say but I think someone should talk to Kleinzach. I think he is withdrawing from Opera project – look at his user page. He has done a lot of work. He is like the key person in Opera project by maintaining the articles, corpus listing, doing assessments and also key person in Wiki project page itself. There are times we have compromise with what we want in order to save a good member – at least that is what I will do in the real life. There are many unorganized projects in Wiki, projects without “somebody” taking care it. At the end, the project is dead. I do not want to see that to happen in Opera project, and for that, I believe we need Kleinzach to continue doing what he always do. I am writing this to you, hoping that you could consider or at least talk to him. When I said, “compromise”, I mean, if the “stub tag by language” isn’t that important compared to losing a good friend, so be it. I genuinely feel that losing a good friend to something that is less important is not worth at all, seriously. I just don’t understand why the tags have been placed in our articles without consensus. We haven’t agreed to it, we are still in the middle of the discussion. That is why I said we have to vote first. I was surprised to see my “watchlist” full with list of “tag added” even I have said clearly that we need an agreement with our active members. I need your opinion about this. - Jay (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dronkle. You have new messages at Kleinzach's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rhinemaidens

Thank you for the excellent additions recently made to the article at PR. They were coming aboard at the same time as I was framing my responses to Johnbod. Your contributions are changing what I shall say to him, so I think I'll wait a while to see if anything else transpires, before posting my reply. Your latest "attributes" para I have made into the second paragraph of the section, where I think it sits better. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you also for the additional images. I have put the Pinkham one on the page for the moment (I now have 3 images of the Rhinemaidens with Siegfried to choose from). The Image:Rheingold I'm not so sure about. There's no source information, no publication details, no author details, so I reckon it would be kicked out by the image mafiosi. Unfortunately, I couldn't follow your instructions to get an enlargement of the modern production image - couldn't see where I was supposed to click. I have extended the final section of the article considerably, and a modern image, if one is obtainable and useable without too much hassle, would certainly be very appropriate. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Great work on the final section! I think, now, that the section is comprehensive enough and should not have further text added to it, to avoid possible unbalancing. The ROH image which you are trying to get clearance on will set it off perfectly, if we can get it. No luck so far, however, on a musical illustration. There is nothing of Rhinegold on Commons, and the people I've contacted seem as ill-inforned as I am about the technicalities. I'm not sure how vital this is to the article. There's precious little at FA on either opera or general classical music, to give a guide. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If it goes to FA you will certainly get a large credit. It is beginning to look a possibilty. I have asked a skilled copyeditor to go through the text, and this should happen in a few days' time. I will take up your suggestion to contact Shoemakers Holiday, but it'll have to be tomorrow now, because I'm off to bed soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Covent Garden image looks great if we can keep it (below looks ominous). I have shifted it up slightly in the article text, as two images virtually at the bottom looked awkward, and tended to compress the text between them. The caption of the new image is aligned with the text to which it relates. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: I've just seen that Mike has put in a FU rationale so perhaps all is well. I intend to get a full image audit before this goes to FAC. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted a section on the Rhinemaidens' music into the article. I'm still working on it, but please take a look. Brianboulton (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Covent Garden Rhinemaidens.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Covent Garden Rhinemaidens.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A friendly note

Peter,

This is NoC. I am here to try and explain something that I think you've misunderstood. The claim that I was denying peoplehood to Jews is incorrect. Those edits you've noted were, in fact, fighting a particular ANTISEMITIC person. His edits were such that he claimed Lazar Kaganovich was responsible for the Ukrainian Holodomor BECAUSE he was Jewish (and he tried to use Jewwatch as a source), tried to remove Israel from a list of countries selling pringles based on the incorrect assumption that Israel is not a country, and then went around inserting "is a person of Jewish descent" into articles about Jews he did not like. I was not denying Jews peoplehood, I was corecting the fallacy that Judaism is only a genetic ethnicity, which is a lie perpetrated by people like Hitler. Sposer explained it to you exactly as I would have. There are many many Jews who are not decendents of the original Hebrews. There are people who converted, people who were the product of mixed marriages in Europe, etc. They are Jews too. Concentrating on the religion aspect does not deny peoplehood, rather it eliminates the fallacy that Jews are a "race" only. If you would like to discuss further, please ask Fayssal for my e-mail and I will be happy to talk to you. I am doing my best to at least clear up these misconceptions. Best wishes. 75.3.113.9 (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not pleading for clemency, I'm blocked indefinitely and I've apologized to Einsteindonut. There is nothing else to be done. 75.3.113.9 (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your email address bounces. Want to pass a current one on to Fayssal or me? --Peter cohen (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens referencing

Thanks fr the suggestion. I have, however, found an Eng-lang source for Dernesch. I also have an alternative source for Schwarz if the questioned website has to go. What about the recordings - did these details come from citable sources? Also, I am pursuing the possibility of sound clips with User:Shoemakers Holiday, but it's not looking too hopeful at the moment. From Saturday I shall be away for a week and only in intermittent contact, so not much will happen till after then, but I am asking User:Elcobbola to do an image audit to identify any problems that might arise later. I am quite pleased with the progress that the article has made since its peer review, and its FAC status has moved, in my mind, from possible to probable. But I will keep working on it.

I've reffed Jurinac, Popp & Jones to the Sabor pages you suggest. I had the recording details for Donath & Moser, & have cited these. I've left out the Janowski pair - the many names & details in this paragraphs are already quite daunting; it is possible to over-exemplify. If you feel strongly that they should go back in, I'll do it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens images

You will see from the PR that User ElCobbola has requested original publication details of the Lili Lehmann image, to show that it was definitely published, as distinct from taken, before 1923. Do you have this information? - it's not apparent from the web source. See also his comments on the FU rationale for the Warner picture, and my reply. I will only be in occasional touch during the next week, but will try to follow developments. I would not be in favour of trying to expand the last section with more details of the Warner production, merely to justify using the image. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Peeving it most certainly is. I have argued that our use of the Covent Garden image is within FU criteria, but my past experiences with the image watchdogs is that they apply the rules with extreme strictness. I'll wait for ElCobbola's reply before deciding what to do. Brianboulton (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Back from my recent trip, I'm still arguing the toss over the image. I have also asked an admin to deal with a change of article name from Rhinemaidens (Wagner) to just Rhinemaidens. When these matters are settled I propose to take it to FAC. In view of the contributions you have made since the article's GA, would you like to co-nominate for FA? No offence taken if you'd rather not. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola is keeping silence. I intend to nom the article tomorrow (21 October) anyway; if the Covent Garden image is opposed at FAC we can defend it and, if necessary, withdraw it later. The name change (deletion of "Wagner") may happen some time soon, but it's not relevant to the nomination. As this will be a co-nom, we need to be clear as to who responds to what - we don't want to be arguing with ourselves on the nom page! I suggest you deal with anything which is related to material which you have added, while I deal with matters concerning my own contributions. We can of course reinforce each other's comments. If we need to discuss something privately, we should do this on our user talk pages. So it should be at FAC some time tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the most logical positioning of the bungee jumpers. My reason for moving it was to create a general production chronology, from the earliest (1876) staging to the latest (2008), to strengthen the case for FU of the Covent Garden image. It probably doesn't make much difference. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Elcobbola has responded to my request re the fair use image. You can read his argument on his talkpage. The upshot is that he is unconvinced by our FU rationale, but will not oppose at FAC. Others, of course, might. I have great respect for Elcobbola's judgements on image questions, but in this case think that there is a vald FU case. If we lose the argument at FAC, as I said earlier, we can withdraw the image then. The article looks in good shape and I am nominating now. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 19 October, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item involving the article(s) Sachin Tendulkar, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently updated or created article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦^C 01:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens at FAC

I do apologise for messing up the co-nom procedure but all seems OK now. May I suggest that we don't fight too hard for Hannah Schwarz? I don't think anyone would notice if we dropped her; we should keep our strength for sterner battles. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea Combat18 etc

...has NOT been proven, by any source. Very poor form to include it on the club page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.194.44.250 (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take this to Talk:Chelsea F.C..--Peter cohen (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessors needed for Composers Project

Just to say we're looking for assessors for the Composers Project, see here. Best wishes. --Klein zach 12:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens - Matzenauer reference

I'm coming over here to avoid cluttering the FAC page with this discussion of exceedingly minor point. Oxford Reference online service is a subscription service. What I suggest we do is to use the "cite encyclopedia" template, which is intended for situations like this. The entry in the source list would then look like this:-

Miller, Philip Lieson (2008). "Margaret(e) Matzenauer (subscription required)". Grove Book of Opera Singers. OUP. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |title= (help)

The inline citation entry would read: "Miller: Margaret(e) Matzenhauer (subscription required)"

This is a completely wikipedian solution against which there could be no comebacks. Shall we do it? Brianboulton (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. (7 supports, no opposes - not bad so far!) Brianboulton (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you go to the foot of the FAC page & deal with a query raised about the 1876 machinery image? Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A little late in the day to alert the Wagner project, I'd have thought. The FAC is, hopefully, virtually concluded. I imagine that the project is aware of the article's candidature, and would have commented had they wished. If not, the danger is that we will have to justify our approach all over again if they come up with different ideas. For me, like you, time is a bit of an enemy at present and I'd rather not look for possible complications. Brianboulton (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

antizionism

thanks, its much better now... Telaviv1 (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Arcadians

Thanks for the tip, which I have acted on. Can we agree, no more "helpful" suggestions about improving the article, at least until the FAC is cleared? I can see us there for ever, otherwise! Brianboulton (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's made it. Thank you for the massive contribution you made to the development of this article from a rather slight GA to, I think, a fully comprehensive and worthy FA. The Wagner Project can now claim their first featured article! Brianboulton (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

76.21.2.27

FYI That IP on the restaurant suicide page drops in, or variants, to help 'fix' a POV pushed by some posters. See the Shuafat page history. I'm still waiting for responsible editors to challenge his last edit there, as they rushed to challenge mine. I may be wrong in my edits, but I have a history of interest in the page. You're quite right that this kind of thing should be looked at, esp. when editors of standing who grow sick and tired of the gaming are drawn into violations and sanctions. Cheers, Peter.Nishidani (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Review request: WP:Peer review/Mozart family Grand Tour/archive1

I hesitate to trouble you, but if you can find a little time, perhaps you would look over this new Mozart article, and leave the odd comment? Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Per your request and a quick review of your contribs, I've gone ahead and granted you rollback permission. Please remember that rollback should only be used for vandalism or edits by banned editors; if you'd normally need to leave an edit summary, please don't use the rollback. Shell ^babelfish 18:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK v2.0

Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in Wikimedia UK v2.0. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of membership guidelines, determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please leave a message on the talk page with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly newsletter to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on this page.

Thanks again. Mike Peel (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])

Thanks for the note

Yes, Peter, I have been following the page and noting those exchanges. I haven't myself done anything there since I was listed, since technically this means I would be in a conflict of interest, and any edit I might make could be taken as evidence of Wikipedia's bias, even if it were simply a matter of pure documentation, of the kind you have now provided. Wasn't much impressed by the Haaretz interview which I read when it first came out. Whoever wrote it wrote it from the script, without anything new. Best regards Nishidani (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited!

Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Personal attacks

No problem. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a note

As I looked over the JIDF thing tonight, Leporello's 'Notte e giorno faticar' came floating up musically to mind (No,no, no...!). Don't know about yourself Pete, but I find wikipedia hard going without the soothing interplay of operatic arias at the back of one's mind as one jumps into what is drudgery. Somehow, everything otiose takes on a colourful lilt, and all's well, whatever. Usually the greater the tension, the sweeter the memory's orchestrated counterpoint! Cheers Nishidani (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Opening of Don Giovanni, Peter. I thought I'd drop a musical note in because I imagined you would be copped with a solid remonstrative thwacking you know where, and , begging to differ with Plato, consider music the greatest anodyne to the intended effects of insult.

Of course, nothing that they write there is anything but distortion. I didn't even list the errors made on my account. To answer false charges is to give those who propose them some credibility. My record doesn't start with an edit on the Munich massacre, but when I did edit there I corrected someone pushing a second rate journalist's opinion about it being the largest massacre of athletes on record. I merely noted this wasn't true by drawing attention to the Cuban airline bombing in 1976, which knocked out, apart from 50 other passengers, the brilliant 24 member squad of the Cuban fencing team. Of course, they were Commies taken out in a CIA-organized terrorist gambit (whatever wiki says, this is almost certain), and so don't really register, since terrorist acts are classified as things non-state actors do, not states.

I'd suggest ignoring them or their proxies, Peter. Watch the goings on with a bemused, documentary air, and take it as a compliment. What they desperately seek is a ratcheting up of the noise level, and thus a quip or two, silence and, to make a rotten pun, eine kleine Nachtmusik of one's choice in the mind, to counter the nichtmusik of these amateurish drumbeaters. Cheers, then Nishidani (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

JIDF content changes.

Re [6] - sorry about that: WP's diff engine's rather poor. The only content changes I made were removing the sentences with David mentioned in the lead and the "Facebook interventions" section, since the 2 refs don't mention JIDF. -- Jeandré, 2008-11-21t21:45z

BLP-related intervention

Hi, I won't go into any details, but I am not surprised that this happened and think it may be justified. I think it's best to just accept the situation and wait. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

JDIF -

Hi, Peter. I have answered you on my talk page. Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Runtshit socks

Thanks for your detection of the vandal, and your action. As agreed in an earlier discussion with Avi, any of the vandals with a user name that clearly refers to me, or with edits that attack me or repeat the pattern of other confirmed socks, should be marked as confirmed, with the tag {{sockpuppet|Runtshit|confirmed}} or {{IPsock|Runtshit|confirmed}}. Anything that looks like the work of the same vandal, but which cannot yet be confirmed, should be marked as a suspect with {{sockpuppet|Runtshit}} or {{IPsockpuppet|Runtshit}}. Some of the latter will eventually be confirmed, and the tag altered; this happened with Professorite and associsated socks, and could happen with Borisyy, Truthprofessor and Zuminous and their many socks. RolandR (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. But it's not strength; rather anger at the injustice in the Middle East, confidence in my own views, bloody-minded refusal to be intimidated by bullies, and some sort of wry amusement at the knowledge that this childishness ultimately hurts more than it helps the cause it is designed to promote. I love the thought of this frustrated idiot sitting at a keyboard somewhere, drooling over his (I'm certain it is a he) own fantasies, bashing out thousands of edits in a futile attempt to further a political position and discredit me, only to find his efforts dismissed and ridiculed, even by editors who he might expect to share his political outlook and opposition to me. If it didn't involve so much work cleaning up after him, it would even be funny. RolandR (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

.

RE: User:Runtshit

Thanks for that info. I'll go ahead and report that IP to AIV. (PS: Have you considered archiving your talk page? You can get a bot to do it automatically.) Jonathan Hall (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Irgun

Guys,
I completely don't mind your WP:PR analysis of the problem.
The "encyclopaedia of terrorism" is not a scholarly work.
I don't care Hamas. I don't care IRA. I don't care Irgun. I don't care Jews. I don't care Palestinians.

I care WP:RS and WP:NPoV.
Let's start by WP:RS. I just want 1 very precise reference to start with the excerpt :

who (we need a name) is the scholar (we need an historian at least Prof with PhD and numerous publications and recognized by his peers) who writes Irgun was a zionist terrorist organisation (we need a reference to an article or a book which is not self-published).

That's all, easy and cristal clear.
Ceedjee (talk) 11:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[7] Really ?
WHO :
Proof of SCHOLARSHIP :
QUOTE :
REFERENCE :

Ceedjee (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

eg:

WHO : Walter Laqueur
Proof of SCHOLARSHIP :Director Wiener Library 1964- 1993. Founder and and Editor (with George Mosse) of Journal of Contemporary History.(retired from from Journal 2005)Visiting professor Johns Hopkins (1957). University of Chicago, Fellow Harvard Russian Research Center and Middle East Research Center. Visiting professor Harvard (1976/7). Two Guggenheim fellowships. Professor (History of Ideas) Brandeis University 1967-1971. Appointed member, later chairman International Research Council,CSIS Washington 1969-2001. Founder Washington Papers and Washington Quarterly Visiting professor (History) Tel Aviv University (1972-1982)University ofessor Georgetown University (1980-1991) etc
QUOTE : "Terrorism in Palestine, spearheaded by Irgun, had first appeared on the eve of the Second World War"
REFERENCE : 'The New Terrorism', Oxford University Press 2000, ISBN 9780195140644, p23.[8] RolandR (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you.

So, Lacqueur reports that Irgun practiced *terrorism*.

He doesn't say if he did something else. He didn't give the reasons (Zionism terrorism ???)

Next Step : NPoV Ceedjee (talk) 06:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think that's wiki-lawyering. PR^talk 16:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well quite. The weight of opinion on the article talk page is clear. I provided a quotation, a link to the article in which it appeared, a link to the author's CV demonstrtion and finally a link to the peer-reviewed article in its published form and what I'm getting back are moving goalposts and accusations of lack of good faith. I see no reason to jump through any more hoops that Ceedjee provides like his pet poodle.--Peter cohen (talk)

WikiProject Lebanon question

Hi Peter. I looked into some of YYouhanna's edits and left my comments here. Best wishes, Majoreditor (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Gérard Mortier

Hi, Gérard Mortier wasn't my edit. I simply added the Richard Wagner Foundation to the article. I am interested in joining the Wagner project. --Jack1956 (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation

I tried to be as circumspect as I could. Perhaps insufficently so? Anyway, I appreciate your response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not much of a fan of the politics. It reminds me of the time I went to a Model UN. Too many egos, too little work getting done. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AS & AZ

Truth is I should have posted it on the discussion page but I rushed it and wasn't thinking. At the moment the article is focussed on the history of AZ which it does badly by splitting AZ into cultural/geographic areas. I would like to focus more on defining how and when it is or isn't AS and to focus more on its current ideological content.

The article also discusses Arab AZ at length without mentioning its link to AS which I feel is misleading.

Trouble is I am busy at work and haven;t the time to devote to it so I tried to put something together quickly from sources that I felt needed to be in there and stick it in to see what happened. In wikipedia things evolve and it may grow into something better or it may just get chucked out.

If you can come up with a better way of putting the AS stuff together feel free to try.

Jonathan Telaviv1 (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

O.K

Hi,It's OK. I understand the issue.Cpt.schoener (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Undone2121

To prevent duplication of efforts: I am working on an SSP report. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

BBC

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on BBC controversies. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. --84.69.83.66 (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sayign you are violating WP:SYN is not violating AGF.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. There is no synthesis in stating Murdoch's involvement in Israel. This is directly related to Gaza. --84.69.83.66 (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seven Jewish children

Thank you!Historicist (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

your opinion on tags

Would you be willing to take a minute to look at "A land without a people for a people without a land" and give me your opinion on the appropriateness of the tags? Thank you.Historicist (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've incorporated some of your suggestions in a revamping of the article. Historicist (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take another brief look, when you have a minute. Thanks.Historicist (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

It can get very lonely over at the King David Hotel bombing article, so I'm very grateful for finding somebody commenting that they've agreed with something I've said. -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A Land wihtout a people

I did read your comments, and have been mulling them over between - you know - actually working on, like real paid work.

I could add something like this, citing it to Muir

According to one Zionist historian, “Anti-Israel propagandists seized upon the phrase following the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO),” bringing it into widespread use “As a perfect encapsulation of the fundamental injustice of Zionism: that early Zionists believed Palestine was uninhabited, that they denied—and continue to reject—the existence of a distinct Palestinian culture, and even as evidence that Zionists always planned on an ethnic cleansing of the Arab population.” She assets that such interpretations “are without basis in fact: They both deny awareness on the part of early Zionists of the presence of Arabs in Palestine and exaggerate the coalescence of a Palestinian national identity, which in reality only developed in reaction to Zionist immigration.” In her evaluation it is not even that early Zionists widely employed the phrase.

When I went back to look at your comments again, I saw tht you had posted something new. The question of Palestinian peoplehood is certainly a difficult one. Even today, one coud cite an actually fairly free and fair eletion in which the Palestinians of Gaza voted for a government that is explicit in its support of a restoration of the caliphate of all Islam ( or, depending on how your read it, all-Sunni or all-Arab Islam) and rejection of Palestinian nationhood. ) And, remcember, even the notorious Golda Meir quote was retrospective, she said something like 'there were nno Palestinians then' If you go back far enough - there were not.

The thing you have to remember is that this sort of argument can be made about any nation. One of the eternal chestnuts of nationalism studies is "When was the nation?" Every nation has a gestational period. And if Palestine fails to become a nation-state and ceases to be a nation at all (Arab Palestinians could theoretically blend into other Arab peoples) it will still not be a unique case.

However, back to the topic you raised. Do you believe that there should be a addition to the article raising the question of why this phrase is so widely cited to Zionists if it was not infact a Zinist slogan?

And, Are you going to start a page on Palestinian nationalism? thinking about it as I write, I believe that there is a need for one. Take a list at the list under National revival. Palestiian Nationalism surely has a place in tathat list. Let me know if you're up for this.Historicist (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Intersting link. I'll keep an eye on it. As for a source other than Muir, you're right, of course, but it's probably too soon. the thing is, her article is pretty recent, and it will take time until another scholar decideds to take up the question the phrase is so widely accepted as a Zionist slogan if it never was one.Historicist (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Even though you supported taking down the tags, you seem like an intelligent and fair minded person. I would suggest you watch out for Historicist because he is the farthest thing from an honest broker. Neither is jayjg who on two occassions flat out lied in his quest to prove that Middle East Quarterly wasn't an advocacy group.

I still regard the article as pure propoganda, but hopefully you can improve the page and make it not such a travesty. annoynmous 23:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I actually have edited many pages dealing with movies, which is my main love.

I admit I have been editing a lot of political articles lately and I have often questioned myself why I bother at all. If you try to counter misinformation on an article, you get a whole host of editors with the same ideological outlook who beat you down until you through up your hands and give up. If you try to ask for help from other people you get accused of canvassing and administrators like jayjg leave veiled threats on your talk page accusing you of violating the 3RR when you didn't.

I try to remain civil, but I have to be honest, I don't like Historicist or jayjg. The way I was treated on this article will color my perceptions of them for as long as I'm at wikipedia.

In this case all I was asking for was that two tags remain at the top of the article for a certaim amount of time so other editors could come along and improve. The only editor who has edited this article significantly in the last month has been historicist who has a bias towards Diana Muirs thesis.

I was handicapped in that I'm not an expert on the subject, but I know blatant propoganda when I see it. I was hoping if I held out long enough that editors more knowledgeable than I would come along and back me up. I think the reason this didn't happen is that many people who are pro-palestinian at wikipedia don't know about this article and the shaddy people who created it in the first palce. You may not know this but this article was created by a sock who was banned from wikipedia around the same time as the CAMERA campaign to bias wikipedia was discovered. If the people who are pro-palestinian at wiki did know about this article I think they would be all over this article. I left a message at the Wikiproject Palestine notice board, but no one responded.

Anyway that's why I decided to quit for know because I need a break from the nonsense. I hope you have better luck than I did my friend. annoynmous 00:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hag Sameah, the best wishes on the occasion of the Passover,Cpt.schoener (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Meetup/London 20

This Sunday if you fancy coming.Theresa Knott | token threats 18:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Israel. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Deleting other editor's messages, messages that are not in anyway vandalism, is bad form indeed. Yintaɳ 19:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I was very surprised to see a vandalism warning message and even more surprised to see that my account did remove content. I can assure you that this was not deliberate. Judging by the content and description of the edit, it appears to be the result of clicking rollback. It's tempting to blame one of my little helpers; they do walk on my laptop and this would just require stepping on the touchpad and the adjoining pad/mouse button. If that is what happenned, it would make a change from rotating the viewpoint on the screen through 90 degrees. However, I think I had the lid lowered but slightly ajar to prevent critter attacks but let me restart quickly and wonder whether I may have had a finger underneath the screen that caught the pointer and mouse. I'll try and notice what I do next time and also bear in mind that the watchlist may b one of the more dangerous screens to leave my computer on when I pause in using it.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I was a little surprised too. After reverting vandalism I usually check the reverted editor's other contributions as well and usually I'll find more "unwanted input". In your case I found nothing but a hardworking serious editor. "Probably having a bad day", I thought to myself, "or maybe he's touchy about the subject." Anyway, glad we've got this cleared up. I'll strike the warning, just for the record. Perhaps you should give your little helpers their own account ;-) Yintaɳ 11:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem

I can imaging the shock of the warning and chuckled at your thoughts and suspicions. Please don't shoot the messager, closing the lid should do. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Judea and Samaria

Firstly, I don't believe there is a consensus about moving "Judea and Samaria" entry to "Judea and Samaria Area", even if you did consult a couple of Wikipedians about it (not to mention the ridiculous grammatical structure, because Judea and Samaria are not an area, but areas). Secondly, the article entry refers to the terminology that is not synonimous with the West Bank Area, and just because the article has been completely taken over and well-written and unbiased material removed, it doesn't mean one cannot revert to it. I suggest you re-read the article in the form to which I reverted it, and list your objections, before we may continue this discussion. Eliyyahu (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not consult just "a couple of Wikipedians" about it but followed proper procedure by raising a requested move and opening a thread on the talk page. I also mentioned the issue both at the WP:IPCOLL talk page and the Arbcom working page concerning J&S articles in general. An independent admin who, as far as I know, has no history decided on consensus a week after is formally raised the matter. Your reversion on the other hand was without any attempt to obtain consensus.

As for the other matter, reverting the work of 10 editors to an 80 day-old version cannot reasonably be considered to be dealing with "recent POV" edits. Some of these changes are certainly old enough to be regarded as representing WP:consensus. If you look at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you will see that once a bold edit is reverted it is up to the person advocating the change to start making a proper case on the talk page. If you start explaining why individual changes were incorrect ro biased, then I shall consider them in good faith, but a blanket revert is just POV-warring on your behalf.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Your response features reliance on the procedure, not content. I do not understand the Wikipedia legalese or its pro forma as well as you do, but from a cursory examination I do see that Wikipedia consensus is a rather fluid concept and a subject to constant change (i.e. even if you did obtain "consensus", it may not longer be the consensus). However, I do not wish to play a reverting game with you; rather, please advise me on the procedure to state my arguments in favour of moving the entry and returning to the earlier version, which, in my view, has been badly corrupted in last couple of months.Eliyyahu (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Before I answer your specific question, I want to mention some background., Please beware that the whole Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of often heated debate on Wikipedia as are other conflict ares such as Kashmir, Cyprus etc. At the moment it just so happens that there is a current ARBCOM case on the conduct of editors who have been in dispute around the use of the terms Judea and Samaria either separately or together. If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria/Proposed decision you will see that it looks like a whole batch of editors on each side of the conflict are about to banned from editing anything on Wikipedia to do with the I/P conflict. There is also a proposal at Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement to form a group of otherwise uninvolved editors to monitor contributors to articles relating to the conflict for those who are concerned solely with advancing their own political point of view rather than with producing an encyclopaedia based on what reliable secondary sources have produced. This means that as an editor you (and I and Uncle Tom Cobley) need to be especially careful in our conduct The advice I am going to give below is going to be with this in mind. A If you are contributing to less controversial areas you can be WP:Bolder but soem people do get protective even in non-political areas.

If you want to do any remotely controversial edit to an article, explain on the talk page, preferably in advance. Depending on the level of controversy, then you may either wait before editing the article itself, or write a talk entry of the form "I'm about to make a change to the article concerning such and such because...". Even if you didn't think an edit needed advance notice, always go to the talk page once you've been reverted. If you're doing a batch reversal especially to a version more than a few days old, then do it one edit or set of related edits at a time. And please note that even if you are dealing with vandalism or other edits in blatant need of correction, there are often valid edits in among a large batch of changes. Quite obviously much of the editing to I/P articles is by people coming from particular POVs. However, putting that in an edit summary may be inflamatory especially when you're reverting many editors. When POVs are clashing, then WP:NPOV says that the article should reflect what WP:Reliable sources say. And once information is being challenged, then those sources should be cited. When reliable sources disagree, (as they're likely to do on many Israel/Palestine issues,) then an article should reflect the range of views rather than treat one point of view as the truth. If discussion is not getting anywhere, or you feel some more opinions would be usseful, then consider mentioning the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. (Incidentally on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration there is a long and rambling discussion spanning several headings on what the guidelines should be on the use of the terms "Judea" and "Samaria". You'll probably want to join in.)

If you want an article to be moved and this move may be controversial (and when I proposed the previous move of the J&S article I thought it qualified), then there is Template:Move which can be placed on top of the talk page and you can then enter a proposed section to explain the reasons for the move. About five days after you've added the template, someone uninvolved will come along and judge the consensus on whether the move should go ahead or not. (There are procedures to challenge incorrect closures.) So if you think the arguments for the original move were mistaken make a new proposal using the template and put forward your reasons.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Seven Other Children

True, it's not the hit of the West End season. But, then, niether is the Churchill play. Moreover, I am not sure where your threshold test comes from. Jewish and local newspapers are valid sources. The Jewish Chronicle is a significant newspaper. The Jerusalem Post is a major daily paper, which has now published two articles about this play. Are you aware of a Wikipedia policy that required publication in newspapers of a specified size or ethnicity?Historicist (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Plays and books are not exactly like news events. They exist as works of art. I would rarely vote to take down a page devoted to a single play or book that had gotten press attention. . This play was produced and got attention in the press. That seems sufficient to me. Historicist (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Anatolia etc.

Hello, Peter. You say "Interesting that the Turks use a Greek-derived name that the Greeks themselves don't use." Not really very notable.... "Ανατολή" (East/Orient) is a very broad term, and is definitely in use in Greece, but requires context to refer specifically to Asia Minor. It's actually pretty common for general words in one language to become technical words in another. For example, the Dutch word 'boom' just means 'tree', but in English it refers to a specific part of a sailboat. --macrakis (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Self-hating Jew

"several of your recent posts haven't kept to WP:NPA"... what? I'm not going to ask for diffs (they don't exist, apart from the previous post calling him a "paranoid delusionist", which is as mild a response as I can manage to bad-faith accusations of anti-semitism), but I'll express my surprise that'd you choose to say that rather than, say, address Telaviv1's comments and behaviour. Oh well, good luck. I am off now. Disembrangler (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sophocles GAR notice

Sophocles has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:Sophocles/GA1 if you object to a delisting.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement is what sweeps is all about. Consider signing up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps/Running total.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Nice work on Rhinemaidens. I noticed it is today's featured article on the mainpage. Majoreditor (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent Hummus Edit

Greetings! Please see this section for the latest debate regarding categories in the Hummus article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on Terrorism

Hi Peter,

The Sikh Terrorism or should I say Sikh Extremism article has been facing a very hostile and enthusiastic protective editing campaign in the recent week after the Sikh violence in Vienna. Some of these editors wanted the whole article deleted, it has been watered down to a political level with much of the non political extremist facts removed, as you know pro-extremists are free to edit on here, but if it is at the expense of making the article eventually invisible, then what would you suggest is the best course of action? The two editors in question, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikh_extremism&action=history you can see the edit history, I have had poor answers as to why the references are not cross checked or why huge chunks from globalsecurity.org and other news reports are deleted when they have been in the article for several months.

Any help would be appreciated, thank you Morbid Fairy (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Morbid Fairy aka Satanoid see here , you have been previously reprimanded for this type of behaviour under the Satanoid account and on your WPOuting violation here. People are assuming Good Faith on your new account so I suggest you do the same. Your behaviour towards Sineed is very bad. Please desist and stop acting like a victim and spamming every editor on Wikipedia.--Sikh-history (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

I appreciate your taking the time to give Sikh extremism a look. I have read, reread, edited, re-edited, so many times that I simply can't see the actual words as a whole. In most cases, your very kind remarks confirmed concerns I already had, but I had completely missed the judgmentalism in the "Terrorist organizations" section heading. Thank you very much. :)- sinneed (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A big thanks from me too. You seem very knowledgeable. --Sikh-history (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments You Left on Sikh Extremism Page

Hi Peter, I noted your coments on the Sikh Extremism page and I wanted to highlight just a couple of points:

You said "Sikh terrorism was a sufficient issue in the 1980s for the fictional hijack in The Satanic Verses (novel) to be by Sikh nationalists who choose to shoot a secularised Sikh as their first victim". I don't think this has anything to do with Sikhs or Sikhism but more to do with Islam. Sikhs, from my knowledge had nothing to do with this. Sikhism and Islam are markedly different.
In terms of domestic violence, a man who beats his wife is frowned upon in the Sikh Religion and is treated like an outcaste or a coward. A man who beats a woman is seen as someone who is effeminate and not able to face men, hence why he beats women. Not that it does not happen, but this is linked more to a cultural thing, i.e. linked to Punjabi culture. This was a mistake Gurpreet Bhatti made in her play Behzti, mixing Punjabi culture with the Sikh faith. The two are quite distinct and seperate as is demonstrated by the 3HO white Sikh community in the USA. Note also, that up until recently, the head of the Sikh Church was a [woman - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagir_Kaur]. Note also amongst Sikhs it is quite common for Sikh women to beat their husbands (which is something quite funny).--Sikh-history (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Shalom

I noticed you editing this page and wondered if you would like to include the fact that the West Bank is a term invented by Jordan when it expelled all Jews from the territories it conquered in 1949. The Judea and Samaria areas did refer to different sizes of territory at different times in history, but the area known as the West Bank for the last 60 years was and is referred to as Judea and Samaria.

Could you respond with a good place in the article to explain where the name West Bank came from? Thanks. -Yosef.Raziel (talk) 18:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -Yosef.Raziel (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Question on Project Netherlands answered.

I hope my quick and dirty translation/summary helps. If not, I have the project on my watchlist and am open to respond to follow up questions. Arnoutf (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love comments

Thank you for your input. Your first comments have given me something to think about. The tag of "Hoax" was used for the question of truthfulness. The tag itself clearly states it "may" constitute a hoax. The truthfulness is questioned in that the article appears to have been pushed in an over weighted direction. I mention this on the talk page. The other tags are self explanatory.

There was a post made on LGBT project talk page in regards to vandalism of the article Platonic love the other day. Someone was removing sourced and properly referenced material used in an appropriate way. They removed the words "man and the boy", and replaced it with the words "two people". After several reverts by the editor I finally just addressed the issue on his talk page that he was using in his summary of an inappropriate use of the word "sublimate". I made a change on that pages lede to better define the term with a reference which was lacking in the other. I staunchly defended that page and contributed to it in good faith. I also changed a word with a link on that page. I made "Pederasty", "Pederasty in ancient Greece" which I felt was more appropriate. That of course lead me to that page which lead me to Greek love. Which is when I discovered the page had multiple problems. The talk page goes back to 2007 on the issue and its weight on the article. I felt that the information and references were tilting the article.

The subjects of Eros, Platonic love, and Pederasty in ancient Greece are difficult for many people to articulate. The ideas they represent are difficult for 21st century people to understand in how the ancients and their beliefs actually worked. I feel strongly about Wikipedia and accuracy. I feel strongly that this article has taken a relatively modern (that reference is in the overall scheme of 2500 years, and is not my own invention) coinage of a term from the 19th century and defined it to mean a relationship between a man and boy. The lede actually does not support that (edit;or perhaps I should say "doesn't mention men and boys in the lead"). It states it as a bounding of two males. I believe author, Evelyn Waugh writes of this type of relationship in the novel "Brideshead Revisited". And of course, there are real sources that support this as well. If the article is not deleted, merged or renamed I intend to contribute a great deal of time on it in good faith.

The question is not a moral one of right or wrong, but simply a question of accuracy. Much of what you wrote I agree with completely. Thank you for helping.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I learned sometime ago to try to be careful researching through to many subjects on the Internet itself. I tend to use google books and the library. The California library system is pretty nice. Any book in the state can be sent to your nearest library free of charge. If I encounter a book I need that has no preview or full view, or if a preview cuts off at an important spot. I just go to the library and get the book. If a book is older than 1923...I like to scan images and upload them to Wikimedia commons and release them into the public domain. I am easily amused.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the vandal

I'm not the vandal, I was just reverting vandalism edits.--Mr. Lampard (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek Love

Hi Peter. There is a message for you here: Talk: Greek love#Committee for keeping Greek Love. Thanks. Esseinrebusinanetamenfatearenecessest (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that trolling "message" which is from this user that !voted to delete the related article. If you need, you can view it in the edit history but it's nonconstructive and quite uncivil. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately someone else he trolled actually restored it so feel free to go there and comment. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I saw this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Supreme_Deliciousness&diff=prev&oldid=295479455 Its not me, I know I cant prove it to you, but I just wanted to say that. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I know, I made a comment about that at the Golan talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGolan_Heights&diff=296397712&oldid=296397124 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Friendly Note

Discussion at Talk:Golan_Heights#RfC:_Terminology_in_regards_to_the_Golan_Heights

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Golan_Heights#RfC:_Terminology_in_regards_to_the_Golan_Heights. Thank you. Nsaum75 (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Assume Good Faith

Before accusing me of trying to misrepresent the article, please assume good faith. In addition, your pointing out that Jerusalem being listed by itself--separate from Israel--is something that I had not seen. Nobody is perfect and outright accusing someone of intentionally trying to misrepresent an article is not constructive. Cheers! --Nsaum75 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:IECOLL

Hi. You may want to add your name here to help make sure you get notification of important issues. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Opera Project discussions

Hello from the Opera Project. I'm writing to all members on the active list to let them know that we could use your input on several issues currently under discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera:

The use of italics in article titles
Possible changes to the article guidelines concerning "Selected Recordings"
Suggestions for the July Composer of the Month and Opera of the Month

Please drop by if you have the time. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love contribution

Oh....now I understand what you were trying to say. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I obviously am human and make mistakes. I have apologised for the mistake. You did not sign your post, but I did reply.

The edits are too important and the research into all the wikipolicies alone was extensive not to mention the difficulty in locating the references because of the old formatting or use of pre-made citation code that is similar. The amount of references attributed to the subject being discussed is absurd and clearly in violation of policy. Use of privately published books, (self printed book, not the letter mistake) and subjects sourced as a reference to the subject in the prose require high scrutiny. Policy states that it must meet a bullet list of guidelines and must not be used multiple times in a single article and must have pertinent relevance to the article such as the article of the author. It has been established that the article suffers from an overweight of information on the author/historians being used per consensus on the AFD. Even if it were not, much of what I am editing is a similar use of subject/reference that do make claims that require third party citations for grand claims (most comprehensive study, etc), or distorts the policy of references, such as the Plato's reference as a claim about Hubbard's work. The prose cannot be written to make wikipedia an authoritative voice. These claims must have already been published and use of the book/and author to reference a grand claim is inappropriate. Even if reworded it is irrelevant to the subject, and is an essay.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to answer all disputes. Keeping the discussion understandable, readable and precise is a benefit to all, and I will endeavor to be as brief and linear as possible.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you + Troy

Peter:

Thank you for the beautiful edit on Troy. I was going back to clean up the mess I'd left and found that you'd beat me to it and done a superlative job! You can find a cast list for Troy at http://www.scofieldsperformances.com/audiodescr-2.htm#troy --MsLiz (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Troy (BBC radio drama)

On July 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Troy (BBC radio drama), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 02:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Use_of_.22disputed_territories.22.2C_.22occupied_territories.22_and_related_terminology_in_the_context_of_the_Arab-Israeli_dispute

Thank you for the notification of the discussion. I will read up on the entry and formulate my comment to add to the posting. --Nsaum75 (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Peter, would you mind listing other users who are involved with this dispute at the Arbitration case? If your case is accepted, we'll need these users listed for notification purposes. Please also be sure to notify anyone who you name as a party in the request. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The people you should be adding to the case request should be those directly involved in the dispute; beyond that, all we really ask of you is that you let them know they've been added to the case so they can post statements. If anyone is asking you questions about Arbitration procedures that you do not feel equipped to answer, please feel free to direct them to me or another Clerk. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's limit it just to the people who you feel have most contributed to the dispute for now; either those who have been most vocal, or those whose conduct you feel has been the most problematic (and try to see it from all sides in that regard, not just yours). Include topic-banned people if need be. If we need to add more people later, we can do so. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

what is this exactly? Is it just to post your view, occupied or disputed?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ok, am I only supposed to post my case for why it should be called occupied? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I still don't know what I'm supposed to do there, so you should get me of that list. I'm probably gonna get blocked from editing Arab/Israeli articles after reading what Nsaum75 have written about me there.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I am generally involved and have been over my wiki-life and am still considering whether and what to do, in light of the current status of where the arbs have stated their preferences at this point. If it will still do some good to add my name to the request, I will consider it more deeply. It means a lot of work, diff digging and commitment and I am not there yet. You likely know where I stand, but I have largely been on a frustration-induced wikibreak since mid-May and am just now starting to get over it. From my pov, wiki has a long way to go in this arena before they may honestly claim their neutral aspirations Generally, I have little problem with what their RSs say, though I dont agree; my main informational/NPOV gripe is the general and consistent dis-allowance of what opposing RSs say. Got any advice. There seems no point if the votes are already determinant for this current action. I feel this is a natural follow-on of J and S and there is a real biggie out there that has been sitting unchallenged since that incident. Regards, [[User:CasualObserver'48|]] (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Golan Heights

Per a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case:

The arbitration committee advises that one or more neutral admins
chair a new and structured Request for Comment on the disputed naming
guidelines on the Golan Heights within a two month time-frame.

It is recommend that those interested use Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration as a staging post.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Comment Maybe I missed something, but the Arbitration motion above (ie: new structured RfC by one or more neutral admins) never seems to have been implemented. In the time since the motion was rendered, the edit warring on Golan Heights page has continued amongst several editors, with each "side" reverting the contributions of the other almost on a daily basis. The talk page discussions seem to have become even more circular as well, since the same editors bring up the same arguments over and over, neither side yielding much towards making definitive progress. --Nsaum75 (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It was mostly Fipplet and his IPs, lets see what happens now.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well done!

Well done for deleting that dreadful trivia section from the Ferrets article. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anout Jerusalem

Hi Peter cohen. About Jerusalem, its a place I don't like going to, but it is easy for me to get there. Of course I have to have my ID, because there are checkpoints going in and out of certain parts of the city, some permanent and some flying. I lived in East Jerusalem for a couple of months when doing some contract work. Heard gunshots there a few times, which I don't hear in Nazareth (usually; though there are sometimes family or business feuds). I generally hate going there because I find it rather humiliating. I don't like being asked for my ID, or having my bags searched, seeing lots of soldiers and guns or settlers with guns, feeling like I'm in a legal no man's land, or seeing young Arab boys lined up against a police car, being searched for IDs beside the gates of the Old City. Anyway, I don't know why Gilbrand speaks as though I can't get there or don't know the place. Perhaps she doubts I live in Nazareth? Or was trying to score rhetorical points? I don't know. Take care of yourself. Tiamut^talk 23:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

When I stayed outside of Nazareth I would occasionally hear sounds of gunfire. I asked about that and was told it's the Arab Israeli citizens of that town, firing their guns in the air as a sign of celebration (i.e., at a wedding). Since Tiamut lives there and I don't, I would normally defer to them but my hosts' explanation sounds more plausible to me.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 08:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Where were you staying outside of Nazareth? Your host must not know Nazareth very well (or knows people I don't know), since no one I know owns a gun, and I've never seen them being shot off at a wedding celebration. When I have heard shootings, invariably, the next day I've found out that people had a fight over money or love. It's not that often of course, but it does happen. Tiamut^talk 12:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. I'm sure I've read that early in the occupation of Iraq there were incidents where allied troops reacted to guns at weddings assuming there were violent incidents going on. Anyway I've now had my query arising from Gilbrand's comments answered and my mistake in assuming that person's gender pointed out.--Peter cohen (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bob Ainsworth

Thank you for your intervention in this matter. Could you possibly use your good offices to suggest a wording for the mention? Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks once more for your courteous response. This may need to go to some sort of arbitration, which I don't know how to do. I don't particularly mind the personal hostility and suspicion, just people pretending that they're not motivated by it when they rather obviously are, and simultaneously lecturing me on etiquette, NPV, AGF etc. I quite understand all the difficulties you mention. There's also the problem that almost every Wikipedia entry has a sort of Guardian Spirit who regards it as his or her own property and resents any 'not invented here' contribution. I once had the most enormous kerfuffle when I harmlessly tried to expand the mention of the novel'When William Came' in the Saki entry. It was angrily deleted within minutes and my mild protests rebuffed with icy hostility. I mean, why? As for 'ADHD', I still have the bruises. I'm well aware of the invidious position of inserting material referring to my own work. That's why I've several times appealed for a neutral outsider to make the change, and why I've held off from doing so myself and tried to bring in outsiders. The funny thing is that it was only my own sceptical inquiries about the earlier entry's claim that BA had been a 'candidate member' of the IMG that led to the deletion of that, before we'd had time to agree on what should replace it. It had been there untouched for for years. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Am currently attempting RfC. Not sure I've grasped the technique. If I fail (in which case it won't appear today, or will be obviously wrong) could you do it? Thanks, PH, logged in as Clockback (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see JIDF talk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jewish_Internet_Defense_Force#.22Hacktivism.22_as_.22type_of_site.3F

Thanks --Fainessnobjectivity (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Beethoven/Brendel CDs...

... are terrific! Thanks a lot! WilliamH (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Seven Jewish Children

I can't quite see what the dispute is about. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Don't know myself offhand, but I'll dig around and see what I can find. Tiamut^talk 22:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So far, I've had no luck in finding out anything about that name. A lot of the folk knowledge about places is fast disappearing as people lose touch with the land because of the travel restrictions, etc. Its too bad really. Anyway, maybe the IP editor who added it will come back one day to answer the question. I'll also make sure to ask locals from the area when I get down there for a visit next time. It won't be useful to our article, but I'll have satisfied our curiousity at least. Tiamut^talk 11:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel-Syria border

Hi Peter, thanks for your comment. I wasn't aware of that issue. --Dailycare (talk) 21:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Israel

Please elaborate on this edit. Green Giant (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Speer and Cortot

Hi, About a year ago on the "Inside the Third Reich" talk page you asked if it mentioned Albert Speer's supposed friendship with Alfred Cortot. When he visited Paris in the pre-war years, Speer claims to have met Cortot and other artists at the Coq Hardi restaurant in Bougival, Paris; this may have happened around the time of the 1937 World's Fair where Speer won a couple of awards for his work. My English copy of the book gives the impression that they were passing acquaintances rather than close friends.--Marktreut (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ludvikus

I've made my response to you there (on the Talk page): Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Perhaps I should have made it here instead.

I suspect we may have similar knowledge, and interests. Best to you (& please read there my response to the issue of being WP:Bold). --Ludvikus (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)