User talk:Smerus/Archive Mar 2007

Mendelssohn

Hi Smerus, I hope you don't mind my change of the introduction. I just think, that at this prominent place first of all it should be said what the man actually did; to whom he might be compared and what other people thought of him can be said in the article. Best regards, mst 23:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am always grateful for constructive comments/edits! - Smerus

Jewish lists and categories

Hi David. I created Category:Jewish classical musicians (actually it was originally "Jews in music" which is why some composers/songwriters are included). A Wikipedia user who I believe is probably motivated by Orthodox beliefs is attempting to force the deletion of all Jewish lists and categories at Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession. Four UCL graduates who attempted to maintain and defend some of the lists in votes for deletion (List of British Jews being one) have been unjustly blocked by User:SlimVirgin who also happens to be against the lists (on the grounds that they are akin to Nazi propaganda and may pose a personal risk to people included). Personally I am not interested in listing living persons so the argument they may endanger people would not apply if living persons were not included. However I think it is a nonsense to say that we cannot list the main figures involved in Jewish history which is what would result if this user's proposal is to be accepted. I would appreciate your comments at the link above. Thanks Arniep 17:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David. Thanks for your input on the above. I've had a go at adding names to the categories you created and also created a photographer cat Category:Jewish photographers. If you have a minute there are people hanging around in Category:Jews who need to go in more defined cats. Cheers Arniep 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List by religion/ethnicity and profession

Hi, David, thanks for participating in the project. If you wish to change your opinion regarding my proposal as shown in boldface, following our recent discussion, feel free to do so.--Pecher 19:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated what I think is the crux of the problem here Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Lists_by_religion-ethnicity_and_profession#Summary_of_the_problem. Arniep 14:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I've been having some discussion with User talk:Yodamace1 and it appears that I wrongly thought that the Orthodox tradition would not consider Mendelssohn Jewish but it appears in fact they would. It is this example that really concerned me about only relying on Halakha and it has made me wonder whether there any (or many) people in history who are thought of as Jewish who did not qualify under Halakha (aside from the old testament examples you cited)? Arniep 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on who was doing the thinking!! - you could cite a vast number of people considered as such under the Nuremberg Laws.......I will put on my thinking cap (not easy over the weekend) and see what examples I can come up with which meet the circumstances you intended in your comment - Smerus 10:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've enjoyed your thoughtful contribution to the discussion. Do you have a response to the original proposal? I'm attempting to work toward consensus and would appreciate your input. Regards, Durova 05:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See response immediately above, I am slightly thinking-impaired at the moment (actually can't now remember without reference exactly what the original proposal was) but I will try to apply myself. - Smerus 10:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Douglas

Hullo, I noticed your edit of this page and was perplexed. Are you contesting his numerous pederastic flings? Or are you contesting the existence of a group of individuals with similar entanglements? Haiduc 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Haiduc -

Neither of your suggestions apply to my thinking. I acted principally because 'pederastic writers' is really a null category, telling us no more about either 'Douglas' or 'writers' than if he were included in 'writers who committed suicide' (another useless category which someone has started), or 'Scottish writers born in Austria'. These may be technically fact, but they don't add to the sum of knowledge, and thus fail a basic Wikipedia standard. Of course I don't deny that there were others who shared Douglas's tastes and exercised that taste to a greater or lesser extent - but what's Douglas to them, or they to Douglas? Whilst he occasionally refers indirectly or even directly to his personal predilections in his works, he is really one of the great travel writers in English, and that (if at all) is how his writing should be classified. Thus I wouldn't object (strongly) if someone sought to categorise him under 'travel writers' for instance - although even that makes him sound narrower than he is.

If you want to draw attention to Douglas's sexuality, why not write about it in the text of the article? - I would suggest under a sub-heading - rather than coyly adding a footnote of this sort which is really irrelevant. That would be encyclopaedic, whereas inventing this category is I think trivial, and (worse) it trivialises Douglas. Toodle-pip - Smerus 23:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

User:Arniep has accused me of rubbishing your research. I am troubled by this, since such was not my intention, I merely sought to point out your research had no bearing on what should and should not be included in Wikipedia. I wish to clarify whether I actually rubbished your research, and so I would appreciate it if you could review my comments and let me know if I did indeed rubbish your research. Steve block talk 19:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, please, I didn't take it that way at all and I have no doubt that you did not intend anything offensive in any way. Thanks for dropping by. - Smerus 19:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and you're welcome. Steve block talk 19:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgakov tomb

I don't know or care much about Bulgakov, but I do about Gogol. I heard the story twice on TV, first when an eminent literary critic (I think Zolotusky was his name) recounted the circusmstances of Gogol's reburial standing near his grave. Then I heard it from Bulgakov's heir (his wife's son, I think) who said that his mother had found the gravestone wasted from Gogol's tomb after his reburial and decided to reuse it for her husband's grave, recalling his lines addressed to Gogol: "Let me cover myself with your overcoat"... You may check this for a more recent allusion. IIRC there's also an entry in Bulgakov's diary discussing rumours about Gogol being exhumed headless, an urban legend which undoubtedly contributed to Berlioz's line in the novel. Happy edits to you, Ghirla | talk 22:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Portillo

Hi - sorry about changing Harrow to Harrow School - I'm a newbie, and I will take more care about 'rewording' in future! Cheers --Neil Woodward 15:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, Neil - I won't list the bloopers I have made! Thanks for dropping by.--Smerus 15:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wagnerite category

I hope you don't mind that I removed Category:Wikipedian Wagnerites from Category:Wagnerites per the guideline to avoid self-references. I have put it into the specific Category:Wikipedians by musician, but I am not sure if that is the best place to put it, feel free to edit. And thank you for categorizing people into Category:Wagnerites, that seems like a nice and useful category if you don't overpopulate it. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 16:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine by me - Category:Wikipedian Wagnerites was anyway just a Sunday morning idea, but I am sure I am not the only Wikipedian Wagnerite around. Let's see. Category:Wagnerites was I think needed and should not get overpopulated if people stick to the description I have placed there. The examples I have started with will I hope set the tone. I am also thinking of starting a category 'Anti-Wagnerites', in which case Nietzsche could figure in both. --Smerus 16:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's arrived - see Category:Anti-Wagnerites--Smerus 21:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Smerus! Paul B 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I must say that I'm rather dismayed by the responses so far on the VfD. Most the people who are commenting clearly know nothing about the subject. They seem to be responding to what seems to them to be an arbitrary or whacky list of names - lumping together Hitler, GBS, various composers etc. Given the strange touchiness of one commentator, it's difficult to know how to point out that they really haven't a clue how important this phenomenon was! I do think that "anti-Wagnerites" is a category too far though. It's also difficult to know who to add. Most of the people listed so far are just people who had doubts or criticisms. Rossini even dened that he'd made the "terrible quarter hours" comment. I added Adorno, but that's debatable. I've just seen the very weak article on Wagnerism. That really needs to be expanded and improved. Paul B 12:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming a habit

I could not help but notice that you have discarded the information of Tchaikovsky's lovers. Quite apart from the discussion of whether or not they belong there is the ingenious rationale you present for deleting such information from any article in the encyclopaedia where you might come across it, "These names irrelevant in WP unless signficant in their own right or had a particular impact on the subject's career: and distort balance of article."

In the present case we're dealing with an aspect of Tchaikovsky's life that is of paramount significance in his music and his personal life, and that has been systematically suppressed during his life and since his death, thus your contention of irrelevance is simply incorrect.

What I find troubling is that this is the second time you have deleted information about an artist's homosexual love life from an article. Norman Douglas was the other, and in his case too his homosexuality was a major force in his life (it got him exiled) and his work. So while the deletion of irrelevant information is certainly a worthy goal, your consistent application of your novel doctrine to purge critical information about artists' homosexuality from their articles is not. Haiduc 12:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Haiduc,

I am sorry that you find this troubling. I did not delete, or dispute, references to Tchaikovsky's love life, only to the list of lovers. These are irrelevant to an encyclopaedic article on Tchaikovsky. The names of these lovers, to be absolutely specific, have absolutely no "paramount significance in his music", although of course his sexaulity as a whole does have some such significance. Indeed the article as a whole at present has precious little on what makes Tchaikovsky an encyclopaedic subject, viz, his music and his own musical development, which I hope to remedy in due course. That of course is not your fault.

I appreciate and in fact share your concern that subjects' sexuality should not be suppressed, especially where their sexuality and its consequences are a major feature of their biography. But that is not an excuse for overstating the case. Norman Douglas's long exile was his personal choice - although, indeed, for the offence for which he might have been prosecuted, a brief spell abroad was a typical action to undertake, he had no problems when he came back to London where he lived from 1944-1950. (Dates appproximate, I am in plaster and can't get to my reference books to look them up). Similarly it is just not the case that Tchaikovsky's homosexuality has been 'systematically suppressed' - it has certainly been common knowledge since I began as a teenager taking an interest in musical history 40 years ago.

I can assure you that I do not only pick on homosexuals for my deletions on grounds of irrelevance, and it just happens to be a complete (but delightful, given that these two are generally unappreciated or underrated) coincidence that Tchaikovsky and Douglas are interests shared by you and me. I am not seeking to cross your path or attack your interests, only to place those whom I value in a full and balanced context that will enlighten other readers. I do hope that this may serve to set your mind at rest.

with best regards, and thanks for your comments, --Smerus 13:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, my apologies for jumping to conclusions. There is so much sabotage of this information in the Wikipedia that I have probably become hypersensitized to these things and over-react. That being said, assuming that our readers will want to have their reading dis-encumbered of information about the love lives of the personages featured here, specifically that they will not give a damn who T's lovers were and only come here to find out about his music, is a far leap into thin air. I think the discussion here reduces to your sense of propriety vs. mine, and absent some absolute arbiter I think that we should opt in favor of greater inclusivity. If what you seek is really to "place those whom I value in a full and balanced context that will enlighten other readers" then how do you arrive at "full" by deleting?! If you think it is not "balanced" then please by all means balance, but not by a process of procrustean editing, please. Haiduc 14:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haiduc, I am not going to make a big thing of this. As I suggest, the article needs to be extended to say more about Tchaikovsky's musical development, and within this improved article I expect the sort of comments about which we are debating will fall into a more appropriate context. There is a real issue however in naming Tch's lovers. Many people in WP had lovers of either or both sexes - discussing the subjects' sexuality may be (but not always!) relevant to their careers, achievements and problems - listing the names of their lovers is not relevant in the same way unless they had a particular impact in the story. Oscar Wilde/ Alfred Douglas? Of course! Wilde/others? Yes that they existed, but mention by name is usually likely to be superfluous. Similarly in Tchaikovsky's story, there is nothing to my knowledge that indicates his passions for any of his male lovers by name can be identified in any particular pieces of his music, or any aspects of his musical development. His breakdown over his marriage seems to me however to be clearly relevant to his music, especially his last pieces. Keep thinking. --Smerus 15:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do I wish to belabor this. I think we are close to going in circles here. Wilde had Ross. Tchaikovsky is of interest to history for more than his music, and he is of interest to different people for different reasons. At least we know now what the essence of our divergence is. Would you be so kind as to post this exchange atthe Tchaikovsky discussion page so that others may contribute? Haiduc 15:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done - discussion closed on this page then, but others can take it up if they wish at Talk:Pyotr_Ilyich_Tchaikovsky Of course I concede Ross, undoubtedly relevant to wilde (and N. Douglas) --Smerus 17:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Images

Hello, Smerus. I don't understand why you are upset with my transfer of your image from Yaroslav the Wise to Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. The former article is overloaded with images, the latter lacks them. I believe your image better illustrates the data on Yaroslav's sarcophagus contained in Saint Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. By the way, if you feel there are too many images illustrating the page, you may want to download it to Wikimedia Commons, where they may be used by editors from other wikipedias. Otherwise, you may be sure that your fine image will later be uploaded into Russian, German, French, etc wikipedias separately, which is not good, for it takes too much space to store all those identical images in the national wikipedias. --Ghirla | talk 13:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion - Peer review

Invasion has been submitted for peer review, and your help thus far has been valuable so I wanted to invite you take a look and make any suggestions you have on improving the article further. Thanks! Kafziel 13:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you worked on the article Invasion, I thought you might like to know that it has now been submitted as a featured article candidate. If you're interested, I wanted to invite you to come vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Invasion. Thanks - Kafziel 05:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Russia

Hi, again. I've noticed your great work on Russia-related article and decided to recommend to add to your watchlist these two notice-boards: Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. Please check them out now and then. Thanks for your time, Ghirla | talk 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schmidt

Colleague, I am well aware of my non-native English, but unfortunately your changes, whatever was your intention, changed the meaning. If you have any particular objections, spell them, and we talk. mikka (t) 17:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I may comment on my three reversals:[reply]

revolutionaries vs. men of revolution. Kropotkin and Marx were not participansts of revolutions; they were proponents of revolutionary ideas. I felt that "revolutionary" iss too much for them, but if you tell me that Marx is known as "revolutionary" in English speech, OK with me.
man of enterprise vs man of impromptu/improvisation: the intention was to point out at Bender's spontaneous generation of ideas, rather than simply "innovation".
Chernobyl survivors vs liquidators. The people with privileges were the ones who took part in elimination of the consequences of Chernobyl disaster. These people are known as "chernobyl liquidators". P.S. BTW, the ordinary "survivors", i.e., people who lived within the area of the catastrophe and resettled from there often received a rather discouraging treatment (you may want to copyedit my yet another opus, Radiophobia), for various reasons, not to be discussed here.

My apologies for rather harsh-looking edit summary. The problem is that the computer dehumanizes personal relations, especially when someone like me types too much. mikka (t) 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Josef Gusikov, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

portillo CF Golijov

Sorry you view my observations on Portillo/Abbott as POV. But liked your SAU review of the Golijov. Did you also go to the earlier Golijov Upshaw concert in Jan?--Farsee50 14:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Moscheles

Hello, I hope you haven't been kept waiting too long for a reply because I haven't visited Wikipedia for several days. There definitely is much to be clarified in the Wiki guidelines (if they indeed exist) about the classification of persons into ethnic/national categories. The tendency among editors seems to be to multiply categories and slot people into as many as possible to cover the spectrum of overlapping identities ascribed to an individual, whether these identities are acquired through birth, citizenship, residence, culture, etc. I admit to following this approach as well, and have largely refrained from debating the subject because of the acrimony that editors traded with each other during the attempts to "purge" Wikipedia biographies of virtually all references to Jewishness. The article's identification of Moscheles as a Czech composer falls within one or more of these vaguely defined grounds or processes of ethnic/national inclusion. He could potentially be listed as an Austrian or German composer as well, although the terms "Austrian composer" or "German composer" could imply, inter alia, a composer who lived in Austria (for a very extended period), who was formally an Austrian/German citizen, who aligned himself with Austrian/German culture, etc. Only some of these interpretations could be applied to Moscheles. Categories cannot accommodate the full complexity of a figure's life, especially in the case of Moscheles' cosmopolitan history. Defrosted 01:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Pinto

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I translated your article into de:George Frederick Pinto (that entry had already been existing for a while, but only as a one sentence stub). It is featured as an anniversary article on the German wikipedia's main page today. I see you are writing for MGG, so maybe you are able to tell me if I have made too much of a tabloid headline (aufgrund seines exzessiven Lebensstils) out of the poetic expression a martyr to dissipation? regards, High on a tree 05:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so maybe you are able - After reading the rest of your delightful user page, I feel a bit stupid for having missed the very first opportunity to actually get useful information out of a Wikipedia user box ;) Wenigsten habe ich den "English joke" verstanden, aber nur, weil ich selbst mal dort abschloss, eine Tür weiter (flussabwärts). Übrigens: Vielleicht findest du das hier interessant (der Löschantrag wurde abgelehnt). grüße, High on a tree 06:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lowest common denomenator

(Please note: the spelling of this heading is Travb's, not mine --Smerus 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Re:

Delete - a nonsense category - as many of the existing entries show. How does 'samizdat' qualify (not a person, or an organization, and whilst expressing resistance to, in no way necessarily predicting the fall of, the USSR? The Mensheviks didn't predict the end of the USSR, they opposed the Bolsheviks. Where and when did Bernard Levin predict the end of the USSR? - it's not in the Wikipedia article. Etc. etc. It serves no purpose - into the bin, please.--Smerus 14:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the author of the category you stated should go "into the bin".

(NB there follows a very long rant of complaint, which I have deleted, followed by the cringeworthy conclusion....--Smerus 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

If you decide to respond to me, before you launch into another naive speech, which will only embarass you, please read the Top Ten Dodge List Tactics to employ if you're in a logical debate and logic has not sided with you (for any number of reasons), and you are nevertheless unwilling to change your argument or opinion. (bottom of page) That will save me a lot of time. Travb 07:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I have of course been too intimidated to respond; but Travb's proposal (about which I will not bore any readers who come across this) should still go into the bin --Smerus 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I noticed how you deleted everything that showed what a complete ignoramous you truly are: [1] and that every single one of your foolish statments was shown to be completely wrong. "Out of site out of mind", right?

Instead of a humble apology because I clearly showed that you didn't know what you were talking about, you knock my spelling. I say this mockingly, in case you don't catch the irony: Which, I must say, completely destroys my entire argument. Where is the logic in this? Since you have been shown to know absolutly nothing about the subject, you have to change the subject and focus on piety issues which has nothing to do with the subject, in a pathetic attempt to save whatever face you have left. (Sorry it really doesn't work)

If your simplistic reponse wasn't so typical, it would be funny, but unforunatly it is simply deplorable.

Did you even read the top 10 list? Obivously not.Travb 00:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this speaks for itself. Any more flaming from Travb I shall be reporting to administrators.--Smerus 09:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews

Respectfully, Sir, if you are ready and willing to discuss this sentence calmly, I can explain my reasoning under the sentence and why I have reasons to believe that this is a part of a more general tendence, which is in fact a matter of respect rather than offense. For starters and to establish a commong ground, would you please explain what exactly is offensive for you in the phrase besides a somewhat frivolous form? `'mikka (t) 16:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Smerus/Archive Mar 2007, thank you for your interest in VandalProof and Congratulations! You are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're ready to go!

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Once again congrats and welcome to our team! - Gl e n ^T_C (Stollery) 19:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page List of NHS Health Authorities (1996-2002) on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Smerus 15:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian capitalization/Meyerbeer

Thank you for your Meyerbeer contributions. I see you have been changing the Italian capitalization. Perhaps I should explain that we are following the Grove on this. This is explained (with general style points) on the Opera Project page. Of course if you wish to challenge/develop or whatever the style that's fine, but I'd really appreciate it if you avoided making random changes. Best regards. - Kleinzach 14:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Lots to do on Meyerbeer. I have just started Le prophète but I don't know much about his operas - I've never seen/heard more than extracts - so I am handing over to you and Buondelmonte on this! Regards, - Kleinzach 10:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHS

Bah, I was editing NHS -> History at the same time you were and things got lost! I just wanted to get rid of some red links, spelling mistakes and links to redirects. I also noticed Poor Law and Workhouses point to the same place, but I see you edited that out.

--kylet 17:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, you are right about the poor quality of NHS and also nursing articles are quite poor, but as a mostly spell checker and adder of titbits I just don't know where to start. kylet 21:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frida Kahlo

David, interesting revelation here. Arniep 23:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion Overseas doctor

In response to: I think you contributed a delete vote, but didn't sign it - can you correct if willing? Many thanks, --Smerus 17:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that one out. I was in a hurry and forgot to sign. —M e ts501^talk 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Superdon

Ah, I thought he just simply wanted the contents 'userfied', but guess I'm wrong on that. Anyway, I've deleted it again. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 00:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Modernising Medical Careers box

Hey - I see you recently added the following to Specialist registrar and Consultant (medicine) earlier: {{NHS medical career grades}}

Where did you get it from? 'coz I have a few issues with it regarding the placement of GP, which is actually (using that system) stage 4, equivalent to consultant... --John24601 21:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portillo

You dont know one thing: this cat: category:Spanish-British people means: Spanish for his origin or ancestry; and british for his nationality. You dont understand it.

Thus it is. You are the vandal. Rayse 17:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Category:Spanish-British people contains no such definition. In fact it contains no definition at all. I suggest you take a moment to look once more at what a category is supposed to be in Wikipedia. In the meantime, you might also take a look at the rules on politnesess in Wikipedia. Because I disagree with you does not give you the right to call me a vandal. Best regards--Smerus 16:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes yes,,jajaja.

Look you the wikipedia rules

Portillo is of spanish origin or ancestry.

Therefore, this cat: category:Spanish-British people is absolutely corret, YOU DONT TOUCH IT. Rayse 18:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rayse - It is not for you to tell me what or what not I may touch. You have to accept as a basic principle of Wikipedia that not everyone out here agrees with you automatically, nor can you instruct them to do so. Any more of this rudeness and I shall report you to administrators.--Smerus 16:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitic people

Vote They are attempting to close the +cat AGAIN, please vote to KEEP. SirIsaacBrock 10:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czech composers

Hello. Please refrain from removing information you have little knowledge about. The four composers listed in the gallery are successors to eachother and are named 'the great four' as a group. Look it up. Thanks. 65.9.112.175 19:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a rude fellow - and doesn't even sign his name. Also quite innacurate. Who calls them 'the great four'? No source of which I am aware apart from our anonymous friend. Janacek is of course Moravian, the other three Bohemian. Czechoslovakia came into being in 1918.--Smerus 21:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Four

I'm not sure what they're called in Czech, but I know that most Czechslovak cultural societies in the United States call them "the great four" - [2]. If you could find the term used most often that would be great. They all build upon eachothers music - I was thinking of making a category ..on par with the categories that already exist for musical connections like Category:Wagnerites but since there are only four I thought a template would work better. Antidote 09:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no encylopaedic justification for calling these composers 'The Great Four'. The citation you give seems to be a 'one-off'. No musical dictionaries or journal seem to use this term. (It is not thus like the 'Kuchka', or 'Mighty Handful' used to describe the group of Russian composers including Modest Mussorgsky). Moreover the use of this box without any explanation or justification in various articles gives the term a specious validation to which it is not entitled. Beacuse it serves no purpose, and because I am not the only one who feels so (see discussion page at Antonin Dvorak), I have deleted it from the articles where it was posted. There is already a Category:Czech composers.--Smerus 08:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHS Strategic Health Authorities

Done. What I've done for this sort of thing - now that I have prepared the base map - is just take that base map, paint over lines with pink, and add numbers. I wonder if there is any news on the Primary Care Trust business? Morwen - Talk 11:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHS stubs

Hi. Have you taken the NHS stubs page to SfD? Unfortunately the recategorisation went through the proper process and the only way you will be able to reverse it is by going through the process again. Either that or get into a revert war with the guys over at SfD (which I would suggest is a little unwise). :) Road Wizard 07:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on getting NHS stubs sorted - I've just supported your proposal — Rod ^talk 09:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Just passing your page and thought that I might want to drop in a userbox that I have created.

Con

This user supports the United Kingdom Conservative Party.

I seem to have an anti-Euro userbox from you, so this is a return of favour if you like! Thanks. Lofty 16:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Smerus, I would like to invite you to help me with a comprehensive edit of the Bayreuth Circle article. I apologise for having deleted your original efforts to improve it, but I was irritated at the dilettantism of the non-informed, and this unfortunately impinged upon your own efforts. I have looked at the work you have done and it is impressive. Please feel free to review my other articles (e.g. Symphony in D minor (Franck), English Suites (BWV 806–811), others available through my user contribution tab) to determine if you would be willing to embark upon such a collaboration. The current content is ridiculous, misleading and, given WPs importance on the WWW, irresponsible. Eusebeus 23:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, of course, as I noted during the AfD discussion. However, I think the Bayreuth Circle article (since it is staying for now) could be replaced with a few sentences (such as I introduced), and one might ask editors from the Wagner and related pages to weigh in as well. Should a group of informed editors arrive at consensus, that would likely be sufficient to replace the current ridiculous content. maybe I should let it go. It's a minor issue, but it is annoying. Btw, the extent and quality of your contributions is ausgezeichnet! Have you been approached about becoming an admin? Eusebeus 16:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pederasty

No objection to the move, but the link you placed in the category does not lead to the proper page. Would you mid fixing it? Haiduc 13:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separately, since some feel that Radiguet got it on with Cocteau, why suppress the info? Haiduc 13:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that in the process of streamlining the article on Malagnac some information has been lost, such as the bit that his mother was aware of and supported his affair with RP. Any objection to restoring that? Haiduc 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sveti-tskhoveli Cathedral

Dear Smerus
This article does indeed need improvement and cleanup and if you help me with that I would really appreciate that. As you can tell I am not very experienced user on wikipedia, but I am trying to post a correct information. The article which was before this article was very short and I think the cathedral does deserve the bigger article. Some parts of the story of Arsukidze are true. For example, we do know that the Arsukidze was supposedly punished, but other details are not well known. There is a novel in Georgia written by Constantine Gamsakhurdia, which is a very nice novel about Arsukidze. It is a love story, where the King Giorgi and Arsukidze are in love with the same lady Shorena and Arsukidze has many enemies, because he is very talented. In general, most of the story is a fantasy of the author rather than the historical reality. So, the only thing that is historically proven is the hand on the wall of the church is Arsukidze's hand. The person who brought the mantle in Georgia was a Georgian Jew and he obtained the mantle from the Roman soldier. However, he was also Georgian but the fact that he had a Jewish ancestry is not mentioned in the article. In general, there are Jewish people in Georgia living more than 2,000 years. I think they migrated B.C. or early centuries A.D. and I think they are very much part of Georgian culture, but I will mention the fact that the man was Jewish if you want me to. In addition, feel free to edit anything like grammar and stuff like that and I will really appreciate that. I also notified other Georgian wikipedians and theya re gonna help me out on the article as well. Regards. Sosomk 18:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hyphen

Great point Mr. Conway. Normally, if I was writing in Georgian I would not use hyphen. However, Roger Rosen in his guidebook uses hyphen. I just googled "Svetitskhoveli" and I discovered that the website of the parliament of Georgia does not use hyphen. As a native English speaker, if you think that hyphen is not necessary I will remove it. Please let me know what do you think about it.

Elias and Sidonia

This is how Mr. Rosen writes about the robe and I am going to incorporate it in the article: The cathedral of Svetitskhoveli is located in the center of Mtskheta and contains the grave of Sidonia, who said to been buries holding Christ’s robe. Giving Pillar, the legend accounts for the cathedral’s name: in the first century AD a Georgian Jew from Mtskheta named Elias converted to Christianity and was in Jerusalem when Jesus was crucified. Elias bought Jesus’ robe from a Roman soldier at Golgotha and brought it back to Georgia. Returning to his native city, he was met by his sister Sidonia who upon touching the robe immediately died from the emotions engendered by such a sacred object. The robe could not be removed from her grasp, so she was buried with it. Later, from her grave grew an enormous Lebanese cedar.
If you are interesed in Georgian Jewish communities:
The Georgian jewish communities are among the most ancient communities of the Jewish diaspora, although the exact dates of their arrival are the subject of some disagreement. The various claims are that they arrived:

Following the Assyrian destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel in 770 BCE.
Fleeing Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian armies around 586 BCE.
Following the destruction of the Second Temple by Roman armies in the first century.

There is also a gruzinic language, which is basically a Judæo-Georgian. Thankls a lot.Sosomk 13:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Conway, thank for the great help you are providing on Svetitskhoveli article. Cheers.Sosomk 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Soso

Dear Mr. Conway, all the pictures that I claim to be mine are mine and also the authors of the pirctures that have {{Norightsreserved}} tags have nothing against their fair usage on wikipedia. In addition, plaease let me know when do you think that there is a time of removing the tag, because I think the article look whole lot different now than it did when you tagged it. Hava a nice break. Best Ragards.Sosomk 09:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An issue about Georgia

I would like to ask for your attention, because there is a big deal going on on Georgia's talk's page. The argument is to make the Georgia search criterion to result in a redirect to the Georgia (country) page. It is understandable that this is an English wikipedia and most American users prefer a dab page. However, according to statistics more than 2,000 users per month read the article about the country of Georgia and the state of Georgia gets around 800 readers per month. I don't believe that the cultural and historical aspects should be compared of two Georgias, because there is nothing to compare. The country of Georgia is an ancient hitorical country, has more UN world heritage sites than the State of Georgia, has its own language which is different from all the other languages in the world and etc. I don;t want this to turn into a cultural discussion and also making the Georgia search criterion to result in a redirect to the Georgia (country) page is not an underestimation of the U.S. state.
As an European I would like you to participate in voting, if you find tme for it.Sosomk 08:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tchaikovsky redux

Hello, I have edited the said page again, in response to other users' exasperation with what seems to be an indefensible tag, but then recalled - and reread - our previous exchange on the topic. I am not particularly looking forward to "crossing swords" with you on this topic, and wanted to simply explore your suggestion that information on notable personages' private relations is not of encyclopaedic interest. I contend that there are instances where it is, especially when such relations either involve other notable persons, or are notable in themselves for being out of the ordinary. Among the latter I would include (or shall we say "historians include") those that cross accepted gender and class lines. Regards, Haiduc 10:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say you have caught me out here, since I do not really know what is and is not encyclopaedic. All I know is that we are in the middle of a historiographical shift, in which masculine romances are for the first time in a long time once again fair game for biographical mention. Here there is also a hierarchy of censorship - while until now such relationships were all passed over in silence, now the tendency is to group them all under the rubric of homosexuality, "graduating" pederasts to the status of modern egalitarian homosexuals. But I do not think that we here should be a party to such obfuscation. Rather we should avoid politicizing the discussion and simply report such relationships accurately and let readers draw their own conclusions. Thus my view that the fact that T's love was drawn to adolescents like Alyosha and Vladimir is significant and valuable for our readership. Haiduc 11:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People by language

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 19#People by language

Please confirm whether you meant your previous discussion to apply to the 3 remaining languages, as they received only 4 days of comments, instead of the full 7.

--William Allen Simpson 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before you respond to the canvassing of the above user, I would urge you to note the ongoing discussion of this subject here. This is not something to be quickly swept under the carpet.

Thanks. yes of course it would be more useful if we had a locator map, but I seriously believe that if you dont include any maps it is not useful for the reader. I think the district map is useful and I will keep using this until locator maps arrive, but I will make a note not to stop using the Slovakia map. Its just I am trying to be as helpful to the reader as possible. I am currently compiling an entire list of places in Slovakia and will then complete all the entries, hopefully resaerching them all later. Thanks Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jews' College

Thank You for starting the stub of Jews' College :) GZee 18:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting for Health

Hi there; I work as a General Practitioner in England. If I were to write a very lengthy, scathing and dismissive edit into your article (I have not at this time) would you take offence?--Anthony.bradbury 22:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; whenever I edit, which is quite a lot, I always try to follow wiki policy on POV and everything else. But I do take a slightly non-wiki line on something; when I have the urge to make a major edit, I tend to talk to the author first. I know that I don't have to, but I have found that people tend to appreciate it. And it certainly does no harm.--Anthony.bradbury 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mendelssohn

Well, the way it was presented was very awkward. If it was very notable to his life however, it certainly can be mentioned in the header, but preferrably in its own sentence somehow. Mad Jack 16:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, as for style convention yes, the Manual of Style for biographies [3] says that ethnicity shouldn't be emphasized/mentioned in header unless it was very notable to the person's life, but, as I said, if it was notable, it could be mentioned, just in a less awkward way. :) Mad Jack 17:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, what do you mean by "have altered on lines suggested by you"? Mad Jack 21:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. In that case, cheers, Mad Jack 21:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Jacobs

Please take a look at Talk:Louis Jacobs/Comments for the comments asked for on my talk page. If you disagree with certain comments or need more insight, please ask me anything on my talk page or else comment it in the comment section and just drop me a line.

As for the idea behind just giving a rating is that almost no articles are fathered (meaning that nobody has them in their watch list) and it is for that reason that I don't leave comments in the article's comment page because it would be wasted time for nobody would read the comments. If you have any other article you would like me to review, feel free to request it. Lincher 12:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Went back and gave more comments. Lincher 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoli Lvovich Kaplan

Hello David, I would like to decorate the German article about Anatoli L.Kaplan with your picture of 'The Musicians', but it seems you haven't uploaded to wikimedia commons. Would you mind if I do it (or you want to take care about it yourself)? - Peter (pxhll on wikipedia.de)

Peter, you are welcome to do it - sorry I couldn't find you on wikipedia.de--Smerus 10:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otar Taktakishvili

Can you specify what page the article is cvio from. I have searched a random phrase by google and got only Wikipedia and its mirrors abakharev 10:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lomonosovgrave.jpg

Update please lic. status for commons:Image:Lomonosovgrave.jpg. Thanks. --Kaganer 00:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bell tower

I agree that the proliferation of Belgian belltowers is quite annoying, but then there is no other World Heritage Site set up specifically for belltowers. Italian and Russian belltowers are underrepresented. I'm not aware of many exceptional belltowers in other architectural traditions, apart from occasional masterpieces, such as Torre des Clérigos. WP:NOT is one reason why such galleries are usually treated this way. You may check the archives of WP:VPP for the recentmost discussion. I believe the image gallery will be deleted sooner or later, so there is no need to make a fuzz about its content. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, copy and paste moves (like the one you performed on Anton Delvig) are in contradiction of WP:MOVE. They destroy the history of the article: you will never learn who actually contributed the stuff you copied and pasted. We have a "move" button for performing moves. When this doesn't work, the move should be requested on WP:RM. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate station

I have no idea what's going on. Sometimes I can see them, sometimes not. Must be some problem wit hthe Wikipedia servers.--Londoneye 21:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFD for Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies

Hi Smerus, as you will see at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_November_5#Category:Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament_from_English_constituencies, I have opposed your proposed renaming of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies because the category concerned is one of a series which really ought to be considered together. Two days ago, I had posted a suggestion for renaming at Category talk:British_MPs#Renaming_subcategories_after_restructuring, which covers all the related categories and addresses a few other issues.

I agree with your concern about the word "from" being inappropriate in these category names, but I believe that there are other issues to consider to. May I ask you to consider withdrawing your CFD, and discussing the matter a little further before we return with a new CFD which both covers all these categories and (if we agree!) addresses the other issues too?

Thanks --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Christie (Glyndebourne)

Do you have any refs for John Christie (Glyndebourne)?

Google seems to have more on his son. Glyndebourne has refs which possibly cover JC but I am not in a position to confirm this. roundhouse 18:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have added ODNB as reference --Smerus 09:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why for deletion?

Why the Category:Spanish-English people is for deletion? I wait reasons. Are you something against the spaniards? --Raymond Cruise]]

see discussion here. And don't make crude accusations against fellow Wikipedians. --Smerus 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chernikhov

Where was the article written from? I did not see the references, that is why I took RJE word for it. The Russian Jewish Encyclopedia keeps a record of all artists who were known to be Jewish around that time, and in fact, there is a Chernikhov listed but he was not the architect so it made sense that that could have been an error. Search engines online bring up mirrors when name and religious affliation is brought up. Are you certain this is not an error? Mehmeda 20:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are right to question this. I wrote the article while I was in St.Petersburg and I cannot now bring to hand the reference(s) I need/ seem to remember. In the circumstances you would be quite correct to edit the article as you did and I apologise. I suggest you restore your edit and I will leave it until such time as I come up with anything incontrovertible. --Smerus 22:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too was wondering about his Jewish connection, because it can't be quickly confirmed via Google. However, http://worldcat.org shows 20 books about him, many in English, some of them reasonably accessible at least in American libraries, so I'm sure the reference list could be improved. EdJohnston 05:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zirnevis.com

I may sound a little dummy, but I'm curious to know how you found your way to Zirnevis.com article! huji—TALK 07:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh - me too. Curious how one wanders in WP. --Smerus 09:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Categories of Jewish Athletes

Hi. I know that this is an issue that has interested you in the past. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Jewish_fencers some people are suggesting that Jewish athletes, beginning with Jewish Fencers, should be deleted. I do not think that is the correct approach, or consistent with wiki policy, and thought that others might want to weigh in on the discussion. --Epeefleche 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]