Caution: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Shah Abbas I. (TW) |
|||
Line 485: | Line 485: | ||
..2. regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xashaiar&diff=prev&oldid=284392171 this]: Good luck, but I promise to revert you in matter of seconds if your edits are disruptive. 1. Use talk pages of the articles you edit and not my talk page. Clear?--[[User:Xashaiar|Xashaiar]] ([[User talk:Xashaiar|talk]]) 11:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
..2. regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xashaiar&diff=prev&oldid=284392171 this]: Good luck, but I promise to revert you in matter of seconds if your edits are disruptive. 1. Use talk pages of the articles you edit and not my talk page. Clear?--[[User:Xashaiar|Xashaiar]] ([[User talk:Xashaiar|talk]]) 11:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Do you actually understand anything? Trying to communicate with you is not "spamming". Just because you are incapable of giving a rational answer to my enquiries, it doesn't mean you can respond like this. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin#top|talk]]) 11:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
:Do you actually understand anything? Trying to communicate with you is not "spamming". Just because you are incapable of giving a rational answer to my enquiries, it doesn't mean you can respond like this. --[[User:Folantin|Folantin]] ([[User talk:Folantin#top|talk]]) 11:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
||
== April 2009 == |
|||
[[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles{{#if:Shah Abbas I|, as you did to [[:Shah Abbas I]]}}. Your edits appear to be [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] and have been [[Help:Reverting|reverted]]. If you believe the information you added was correct, please [[Wikipedia:Citing sources|cite references or sources]] or discuss the changes on the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the [[Wikipedia:Sandbox|sandbox]]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-error2 --> ''your edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abbas_I_of_Persia&diff=284393864&oldid=284390143 here] is unacceptable. You should not delete information and put wrong info.'' [[User:Xashaiar|Xashaiar]] ([[User talk:Xashaiar|talk]]) 11:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:39, 17 April 2009
Please leave messages below. I will probably reply on this page to keep debates together (but you never know). If you want me to take part in a debate on WP:ANI, you will have to inform me here first.
Thanks for checking the non-English Wikis for this one. Do you read the language though? If so, it would be interesting to know what the article is about and if we perhaps do already have an English entry over here. Regards, De728631 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Afraid I don't read Kannada. I'd guess the page has something to do with geography though. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey
I thought you would get a kick out of this. --David Shankbone 16:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- It's amazing what miracles you can work when you cast off the shackles of neutrality, conflict of interest, reliable sources and all such square stuff. Funny, I've been looking for the "knols" on Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms etc. - with no success. Obviously, a cutting edge site which has its priorities right. Wikipedia is doomed. --Folantin (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, right. I dunno - don't you think it's embarrassing to have to write your own biography asserting notability? It's like, "Screw you all if you don't recognize, I'm going to write it and spread the word of my amazing accomplishment!" I guess self-promoting "Knols" no bounds. (Ha- get it? Get it? "Knols" no bounds? lol) --David Shankbone 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Interesting essay up for deletion
Check this out: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Tag team.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I have mixed feelings about this - so mixed I'm not sure my comment would add much to the debate. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Opera banner
Sorry to be a bore about this, but you've gone back to using 'Opera' as the code instead of 'WikiProject Opera'. Can you possibly use the latter and maybe correct any outstanding banners? The problem is that 'Opera' may not be picked up by automatic processes. Thanks. --Kleinzach 00:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to remember. I only really plan to produce "barebones" articles for some of the September Composer of the Month operas in the immediate future, so you can double-check on me by seeing if any of the red links on the Opera Project front page have turned blue. --Folantin (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Opera ratings
More: I am trying to craft a sensible approach (proactive compromise?) to assessments that everyone can agree on. At the moment I'm thinking we should restrict written assessments to 'B-class' (of which there are now 74), not use 'C-class' at all, and have nominal assessments (as now) for 'start'. (Stub/FA/GA processes would remain as at present.) Is this something that you could go along with or possibly even approve - given your long standing dislike of ratings? I can go into more detail if you like. Best. --Kleinzach 10:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'll have to get back to you on this either later today or over the weekend because I'm tied up with other things right now. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually next week would be fine. --Kleinzach 11:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- Quick reply: (a) I'm still not wild about the whole assessment drive; (b) unassessed articles should be marked "Unassessed" not "Start"; (c) we really don't need the "C"-class rating. --Folantin (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm. We have 5,000 articles but only 75 or so are B-class. We have 3,350 non-stub articles automatically/nominally rated as Start. If these are all marked as unassessed, someone will have to rate them individually. I don't think this is do-able, also I doubt whether assessments are worthwhile for less developed articles. The problem with the suggestion that "articles should be marked "Unassessed" not "Start"" is that this is precisely the hardline pro-rating position that all (non-stub) articles should have a written assessment. --Kleinzach 12:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand this. I would expect any assessment drive to rate all non-stub articles individually. --Folantin (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- My understanding was that some editors wanted full assessments and some editors (including I thought you) wanted none, so I was putting forward limited assessments as a compromise. However now I understand you want a full thorough going assessment drive. Am I right? --Kleinzach 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- My feelings on assessment drives are very close to those of this repentant proponent here [1]. I do not understand the point of them. However, if people insist on assessing articles then they should do a thorough job of it. "Drive-by" ratings and automated assessments are the very worst possible way to do this. I've expressed my dismay at WP:BIO's "assess-an-article-in-30-seconds" campaign elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- My understanding was that some editors wanted full assessments and some editors (including I thought you) wanted none, so I was putting forward limited assessments as a compromise. However now I understand you want a full thorough going assessment drive. Am I right? --Kleinzach 17:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand this. I would expect any assessment drive to rate all non-stub articles individually. --Folantin (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Mmm. We have 5,000 articles but only 75 or so are B-class. We have 3,350 non-stub articles automatically/nominally rated as Start. If these are all marked as unassessed, someone will have to rate them individually. I don't think this is do-able, also I doubt whether assessments are worthwhile for less developed articles. The problem with the suggestion that "articles should be marked "Unassessed" not "Start"" is that this is precisely the hardline pro-rating position that all (non-stub) articles should have a written assessment. --Kleinzach 12:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Quick reply: (a) I'm still not wild about the whole assessment drive; (b) unassessed articles should be marked "Unassessed" not "Start"; (c) we really don't need the "C"-class rating. --Folantin (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually next week would be fine. --Kleinzach 11:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK. We share the same opinion but arrive at opposite conclusions. IMO not doing at least 'drive-by' assessments just hands control on a plate to WP:BIO and the other apparatchiks. (We've just an example of this with the Wikipedia 0.7 selection.) --Kleinzach 05:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BIO has no say in the majority of articles on opera, I believe. In any case, we should be making a stand against this nonsense. When I first started editing Wikipedia I planned to write articles on books but I was put off by WikiProject:Novels, who promptly commandeered the talk pages of my efforts with their banners and rated them according to their ridiculous scheme (obviously my pages couldn't be any good because they lacked the approved infobox). So I joined the Opera Project instead because it was refreshingly free of such bureaucratic idiocy. A cautionary tale. --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BIO has bannered more than half the articles on the Opera Project and assigned them to task forces. Nothing much has happened except for the recurring infobox problems, but there is a database there that can be used to change the Opera articles en masse at any time. I'd be much happier about the long term security of the opera articles if that database didn't exist. We've just successfully debannered the Music Project so it can be done. --Kleinzach 10:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- WP:BIO has no say in the majority of articles on opera, I believe. In any case, we should be making a stand against this nonsense. When I first started editing Wikipedia I planned to write articles on books but I was put off by WikiProject:Novels, who promptly commandeered the talk pages of my efforts with their banners and rated them according to their ridiculous scheme (obviously my pages couldn't be any good because they lacked the approved infobox). So I joined the Opera Project instead because it was refreshingly free of such bureaucratic idiocy. A cautionary tale. --Folantin (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK. We share the same opinion but arrive at opposite conclusions. IMO not doing at least 'drive-by' assessments just hands control on a plate to WP:BIO and the other apparatchiks. (We've just an example of this with the Wikipedia 0.7 selection.) --Kleinzach 05:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- We are overrun with Myspace refugees looking for something to do. Finding entry-level positions unappealing, they seek supervisorial roles in the Ministry of Tagging and Stamping. They aren't hard to get. Next door, the windowless Ministry of Widgets also advertises openings. Fear them.
- I'm pessimistic about 0.7 -- they seem to have come up with some sort of algorithm to determine inclusion based on popularity (links-to, hit-count, etc.), so, for example, no composer who lived before Vivaldi will ever be included on the DVD. Is this DVD important? Will anyone care? As it is now, it would be laughable, without soliciting a careful expert selection in every field of endeavor. Which may be difficult to get.
- Regarding assessment, I generally stamp "B" on everything I write unless I know it can be expanded further: it keeps the mosquitos away from the picnic. Regarding "importance" -- this one scares me. Short of using some kind of methodology like the one developed for the list of famous operas, how on earth can anyone determine this? Right now the ignoranti seem to be having a go at it. -- My I'm sounding arrogant. Maybe my critics are right after all! I'm feeling a new essay on the way: "Experts: how to treat those pests."
- "All revolutions evaporate, leaving behind the slime of a new bureaucracy." We've been slimed. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm beginning to suffer from Philip K. Dick-style paranoia that Wikipedia 0.7 may be the first wholly automated project. What if the entire enterprise is the work of bots? Perhaps it's the first stage in their campaign for world domination. Although if Selectionbot is their leader, any worries about robo-supremacy may be a little premature. --Folantin (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
If not a winner
...then at least in the top ten, for edit of the year. The discussion on that page is quite enlightening. Evidently many works of Mozart are unsuitable for listing even in the article on the catalogue. I confess astonishment. Antandrus (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Byzantium Flag
Hello Folantin,
My first time posting on Wiki. I was going to post this on the talk page for Byzantium but since it was locked I figured your talk page would be the next best thing. I apologize if this was not where I supposed to post this, but being my first time posting I'm still trying to figure my way around Wiki. Just wanted to point out one of the sources for the emblems being part of official banners during the Christian era of Byzantium is classical scholar William Ridgeway / The Origin of the Turkish Crescent., by William Ridgeway © 1908 Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
"Yet when we come to examine into the history of the crescent as a badge of Muhammadanism, we are confronted by the fact that it was not employed by the Arabs or any of the first people who embraced the faith of the Prophet, and that to speak of the crescent as a symbol borne by Saracens who fought in the Crusades against Richard Caeur-de-Lion or Saint Louis is to be guilty of a dreadful anachronism. The truth is that the crescent was not identified with Islam until after the appearance of the Osmanli Turks, whilst on the other hand there is the clearest evidence that in the time of the Crusades and long before, the crescent and star were regular badge of Byzantium and the Byzantine Emperors, some of whom placed it on their coins. It is held by some that the Osmanli Turks adopted the crescent and star from the Byzantium after their occupation of Northern Asia Minor, whilst others hold that they did not employ it until after the capture of Constantinople in 1453."*The Origin of the Turkish Crescent., by William Ridgeway © 1908 Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Also the flag depicting the dynastic Arms of the Cyprus branch of the Byzantian Komnenos [Comnenus, Comneno] family (c. 1184-1195), as used by the island's Governor Isaac Komnenos depicted the crescent and the star as their official symbols.
Regards Angar432 Angar432 (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- You should probably contact an admin (e.g. User:Moreschi) to unprotect the page so you can add that information. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:16, 20 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) 13:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Um, I'd rather refrain from commenting until WP:SS have done whatever it is they're supposed to be doing. I still haven't quite fathomed the purpose of this project but no matter. I'm really unimpressed by this whole affair but I'm not going to get worked up about something as trivial as stubs or their sorters. Obviously you can guess who I prefer out of Kleinzach and the SS. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Message from blocked user
They are going to delete Battle of the Tigris soon, that is why I was updating it, they are abusing their powers when I put underconstruction(which says if I DO not edit it for a long time, it would be deleted) I have been editing it everyday and then they take to speedy deletion! Whats going on?
- What's going on is that you are blocked for a week. That means you don't get to edit Wikipedia at all (apart from your own talk page) under any identity (and that includes anonymous IPs such as the one you are using now). --Folantin (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Ancient Persian problems
You recently contributed to an AfD discussion on an article about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I was blocked
I was blocked for 4 months and stayed away fr WP. Reviewing again the order, I noticed (in the code) that you countersigned the order. Is this a standard WP procedure that all block orders be countersigned? Also, I was accused of a mile-long sins, but the order limited the list solely to "persistent disruption", and if that is a result of your countersignature, I am greatful. Barefact (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Changing the CoM format
Hi, me again. Since you and Nrswanson proposed some changes to the CoM format for January [2] (with which I agree), perhaps we should start a discission now on the OP before people disappear for the holidays? I'm happy to get the ball rolling, but need to know if you'll be around in the next few days to participate. I'll post a similar missive on Nrswanson's page. By the way, I loved the quote from A Season in Hell - bless him ;-). I always think of Monsieur Rimbaud when I'm picking my way through the flotsam and jetsam, of Camden Town (Ugh!). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Nrswanson will apparently be very busy until after the week-end. Probably better to start it off on Sunday or Monday. It still gives members several days to discuss before the holly and the ivy really start hitting the fan. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you are correcting this which is fine - the detail is quite complicated. I based my work on Grove etc. One thing I don't understand is why you have listed some works as incidental music when they are given as opéras comiques. Is the designation wrong? BTW I didn't delete the lists on the biographical page. What should we do with these? --Kleinzach 09:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC) P.S. The reason for putting all the works in one table was to enable sorting. --Kleinzach 09:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- We can change the title of the article to be more inclusive if necessary. I've already done this with List of works for the stage by Weill. Also, the list is sortable which means you can group the works by genre. That's the whole point of sortability - it means you can make subsets. The Rameau sort coding isn't finished yet - for a better example see List of operas by Handel which has special sort tags put in by Michael B. --Kleinzach 10:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Carmen
I noticed you made Carmen into an opera comique. It definitley was one, but is it still? I don't think it's performed with spoken dialog anymore. I'm just curious. DrG (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- "I noticed you made Carmen into an opera comique". No, I simply reverted. It was Bizet who made Carmen an opéra comique. Somebody else added recitative later. I've certainly heard versions which stick to the original spoken dialogue. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Is work Mirroring Russian Nationalist Web-sites acceptable?
I elft almost the same mesage on Moreschi's talk page but I'm afraid he might be too busy on other matters to get invovled here. Is there anything you could do? A little while Moreschi banned (Jo0doe (talk) from writing on the Holodomor. Since that time he has simply redoubled his "efforts" on other Ukraine-related articles. This appeared on the talk page [3] of one of the articles he's geting involved in: "I hope you also able to posess a Dr. V.Maslovskyy 1999 work which partially related to the Division - indeed intresting analysys of sources. Jo0doe (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)"
I did some research into Maslovsky, which I described in this discussion: [4]. Basically he was a communist-era historian who became unemployed after the fall of communism but maintained an unoffocial career as a Russian nationalist writer. He was murdered, allegedly (and probably, but the case was unsolved) by Ukrainian nationalist thugs. Here is a taste of what Maslovsky's writing: [5]: "Нинішні "національно свідомі" від націонал-демократів до націонал-фашистів в Галичині (і не тільки в цьому краї) прагнуть не лише створити націоналістичну еліту, яка б запанувала над усім життям України, але й націоналістичну диктатуру типу Муссоліні й Гітлера, яку б очолила ця націоналістична еліта. Про таку диктатуру над власним народом вони сьогодні заявляють відкрито. Все це відбувається при всебічному потуранні місцевих, так званих "демократичних", властей." Translation: "Today's 'nationally conscious', whether they be national democrats or national fascists in Galicia (a region in Western Ukraine), want not only to create a national elite which would rule over all of Ukraine, but would also establish a nationalist dictatorship in the manner of Mussolini or Hitler, which would be led by this nationalistic elite. They openly discuss this dictatorship over the nation. Everything takes place within the local so-called "democratic" government."
I quickly glanced through Maslovsky's work and saw close parallels between his arguments on various topics and those of Jo0doe. Wikipedia really ought not to be a venue for the spread of Maslovsky's ideas. How can this be stopped? Do we need to got through months of arbcom and other bureacracy for what sems to be black-and-white example of an extensive history of disruptive, nationalistic POV-pushing, cherry-picking, etc.? Any help would be greatly appreciated.Faustian (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Misunderstanding
Haha! My apologies on the misunderstanding on the admin noticeboards. Honestly, I hadn't seen the comment above his and his writing style is completely long-winded and convoluted in my opinion. I have taken back all my statements. Just not sure how to perform a strikethrough Cheers dude (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I just learn that if I don't understand half of what someone is saying, I won't butt in. lol! It really hurt that he would make a response like that about someone who just commented that their grandma died. Wow! Anyways, Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Some tidbits of background you might be interested in:
- Roobit has used Estonian IP addresses. I'm not entirely sure of his location, but evidence seems to be consistent with him residing in one of the high-rise districts of Tallinn, either Lasnamäe or similar.
- Most of Roobit's rants involved specifically the Bronze Soldier affair, and an elaborate if silly interpretation of Baltic history. Roobit has also been publishing these same views elsewhere, see for example [6].
- Roobit was on a long break of more than year after the Bronze Soldier affair had wound down, only reactivising in late November. His views show little development; both the display of xenophobia and the silly interpretation of history are still recognisably there.
- Roobit's style of discussion is remarkable for its lack of response to or even acknowledgment of other participants' views. He seems to prefer communicating in manifestos, and views Wikipedia as a venue to disseminate those manifests rather than a collaborative project.
- Roobit has also shown little interest in coöperating with other Wikipedias in areas outside article creation, working mostly alone. Probably closest to any form of social coöperation is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn#Outside view by User:Roobit, but even this expression of support for another alternative historian devolves quickly into another reiteration of Roobit's historical views.
- Some tidbits of background you might be interested in:
- I'm not entirely sure what to conclude from these tidbits, but I consider it plausible that he might be a member of Nochnoy Dozor (pressure group), trying to ensure that the group's ideology is represented on Wikipedia. I particularly associate him with this group rather than the plausible alternatives because of his obsession with Bronze Soldier affairs — the raison d'être of that group. While other groups have shown interest in these affairs, or even taken strong positions, none of the others are as fundamentally related to that monument, or its relocation. The reason for Roobit's reactivation might be connected to the then-nearing, now-passed end of the trial over four people accused of organising the rioting; all with significant ties to Nochnoy Dozor. It's perhaps interesting that Nochnoy Dozor has also become more active in local PR work in recent months; for example, they have been doing push polls trying to sell people the idea of a Russian regional autonomy within Estonian borders.
- While there is no doubt that Roobit appears to enjoy inflaming ethnic relations, I do not see sufficient evidence to decide his own ethnicity. There's the simple, popular, and obvious possibility, but it can quite likely be wrong. In any case, details of Roobit's views are not typical to any of the ethnicity-based subcultures found in Tallinn, so no understanding can be gained by lumping him into one (or more) of them prematurely. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Merry XMAS
Project tags
Happy New Year Folantin!I hope all is well. I am afraid that I do not share your opinion about waiting to place the opera banner. The opera banner helps us with bot runs and cats for the project. It is useful in keeping track of new articles and therefore the best policy is to place the banner as soon as the article is created. Voceditenore and I always do this and we are usually the ones doing the majority of the housekeeping for the project.Nrswanson (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I agree that it may be time for the project to evaluate assessment again. Guilliametell and I have already been talking about it. As for the assessment of individual articles, any editor can change the assessment rating of an article at anytime if they feel it is inaccurate, yourself included.Nrswanson (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
...for the assist with the latest ethnicity edit-warrior. Good grief -- only the Nazis think of Mendelssohn as Jewish? Nice to know that I've got a political axe to grind. Can you imagine what would happen if someone tried to rewrite the Jew article to make it a religion only? (Actually I do know what would happen, and it probably wouldn't take very long.) Happy new year -- I hope 2009 is a decent one. Antandrus (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Ethnic battles
I just ran across your User:Folantin/Userspace Folantin5. I wrote an essay, which you can read at User:Ravpapa/The_Politicization_of_Wikipedia, in which I promote an idea for dealing with touchy political articles, that I hope you find interesting. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll try to have a look at it in the next few days. --Folantin (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
PHG
Heya, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop, the conversation that you and I had about Geir Smith (talk · contribs) several months ago has come up. I don't think you have to offer a statement or anything, but I did want to let you know in case you wanted to monitor the case. FYI, --Elonka 03:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. I can confirm that if you like, but there doesn't seem to be much need for it at the moment. IIRC Boubouleix's comments on French Wikipedia were even worse (accusing you of being a Mossad agent) but I believe they've been oversighted. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Flagged Revs
Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not really a big fan of userboxes and ribbons, but if this scheme looks like becoming reality then I'll consider adding one. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Strength of Character
Congratulations for standing up to the monolith. Your action, as mentioned by you on the Joris-Karl Huysmans Talk Page, was against the contemporary grain.Lestrade (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Lestrade
The Swallow
He is co-author with Puccini on this opera. If this is not enough to put him on the Opera composers list...--Cote d'Azur 13:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)
- Please read the criteria for inclusion at the top of the List of major opera composers page. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I did !--Cote d'Azur 13:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)
- OK then. So you've read the Lists Consulted section [7]. Mr Ferrero's name did not appear on any of them. You'd probably be better to include his name on The opera corpus page, which is an exhaustive list of opera composers. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
He IS already in The opera corpus and The New Grove Opera Dictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs) 14:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- OK, but he didn't meet the inclusion criteria for the List of major opera composers page. I'm not sure I can help you any further. --Folantin (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Has Judith Weir meet the criteria ?? He is a very big composer, his operas are constantly performed all over the place, a friend of Berio and Cage... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs) 14:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, this isn't my list of favourite opera composers, and it isn't your list of favourite opera composers, it's an attempt to create a relatively neutral list by compiling lists from outside sources. I would have liked to see Marc-Antoine Charpentier on there, to take one example. The fact that nobody is completely satisfied with the list probably indicates it has achieved a degree of neutrality. (BTW Could you please sign your comments using four tildes or the sign button, thanks). --Folantin (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the list is good and includes almost everybody who was anybody in opera since the beginning, except him. He has surely done MORE for the opera than her, and if she is there then... --Cote d'Azur 14:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)
- Him being Ferrero rather than Charpentier, I presume? I'm not much of an expert at contemporary opera so I couldn't really comment on that. But, yes, arguably Judith Weir shouldn't be there because she didn't strictly meet the criteria. I think she and Ethel Smyth are there in the interests of gender equality. If you want to argue Weir shouldn't be on there then you'd probably be better to do it on the talk page of the list because several people had an input, not just me. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to avoid these messages landing on the net, that's why I don't write full names. Ok, it was nice talking to you, cheers, --Cote d'Azur 14:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cote d'Azur (talk • contribs)
My RfA
Thanks. I'm going to thank everyone who contributed, but it will take a day or two. I've learnt a great deal in so many ways. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Right, no disrespect was intended
I realize that some people are offended when I say what I did in response to your message on Judith's page, but from experience, I've decided to say it anyway. I supported Judith, both in her RFA and privately; she's one of the greats. After these really bruising RFAs (which thank god are not all that common), the whole community feels torn, and a lot of people feel a need to jump on the candidate's talk page and have their say; but this is likely to be a time when the ex-candidate feels vulnerable, and may say things (in one direction or another) that they regret later, and probably just needs to take a break more than anything. I realize that it's kind of a violation of etiquette standards to respond like I did to your well-wishing; I'm just saying that I've seen it many, many times, and it often has the effect of making the ex-candidate feel pressured to declare loyalties rather than coming off as genuinely supportive.
Your position is entirely valid, obviously, and enjoys a lot of support at WT:RFA; please feel free to discuss it with us or with me. I will listen. (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- "the whole community feels torn". Um, no, it doesn't. Please get a sense of perspective. It's mildly annoying but nobody's dead or injured. Your idea that there is something called an "RfA community" [8] is one of the things wrong with the RfA process. Hanging round RfA on a regular basis shouldn't give anyone special privileges. --Folantin (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I actually came to the conclusion myself today after seeing how much Balloonman was getting criticized in his RfB for how much time he spent on RFA (in proportion to other activities) that I need to spend even less time on RFA, myself. But I don't think it's a wacky idea that people who talk and vote together on a regular basis could be called a "community", given that you often hear about the "black community", the "gay community", etc. And, despite the impression of people that don't know RFA well that we're all jerks with hearts of stone, yes, many of us do feel torn by close votes, especially when they fail. We haven't figured out a solution yet, but it's not for lack of trying; WT:RFA is the most edited page on en.wp, and RFA has probably accounted for more reform proposals (all voted down) than any other page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Btw ... I wouldn't mind advice on how to do what I just did on Judith's page better than how I did it; I still don't have it right. The last time that felt similar to this was Eastlaw's failed RFA; he's an awesome contributor, but things went wrong during the RFA (and that one, I opposed). At the end of the RFA, he made a big "screw off" statement on his RFA page, and that might or might not be problematic for him in his wiki-future. This is just my hypothesizing, but the candidate can't talk about these things (obviously) during the RFA, and is generally feeling very stressed, and as soon as the muzzle comes off at the end of the RFA, there's this rush of people who want to get closure and make everything all better; one way is to decide that RFA is f*cked and that no attention should be paid, and I can understand that. But it might not be the resolution that the candidate is looking for, and they probably shouldn't be encouraged to take that stance at a time when they're highly stressed; they might later regret their actions. If they had no interest in RFA, they probably wouldn't have run in the first place. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is perfectly possible to be very interested in adminship and care not at all for RFA. Moreschi (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- "you often hear about the 'black community', the 'gay community'..." No, please...I've taken part in several RfAs over the last three years. It's just something you do now and then, it isn't a career option. Obviously, with the increased size of Wikipedia and the inevitable bureaucratisation that entails some editors worked out that they could hang round RfA all day because it was a hell of a lot easier than contributing content or dealing with the controversial areas of Wikipedia. These people began to think of themselves as "RfA experts" (like a bunch of kids hanging round a shopping mall deciding they are "retail analysts"). They invented some more pointless hoops for candidates to jump through and insisted that their egos be massaged or else.Unfortunately they somewhat overrated their expertise..."they might later regret their actions." In other words, they might say something that wounds the vanity of this self-satisfied clique who will then demand "payback". I'm sure Itsmejudith is canny to that already.--Folantin (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is perfectly possible to be very interested in adminship and care not at all for RFA. Moreschi (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Btw ... I wouldn't mind advice on how to do what I just did on Judith's page better than how I did it; I still don't have it right. The last time that felt similar to this was Eastlaw's failed RFA; he's an awesome contributor, but things went wrong during the RFA (and that one, I opposed). At the end of the RFA, he made a big "screw off" statement on his RFA page, and that might or might not be problematic for him in his wiki-future. This is just my hypothesizing, but the candidate can't talk about these things (obviously) during the RFA, and is generally feeling very stressed, and as soon as the muzzle comes off at the end of the RFA, there's this rush of people who want to get closure and make everything all better; one way is to decide that RFA is f*cked and that no attention should be paid, and I can understand that. But it might not be the resolution that the candidate is looking for, and they probably shouldn't be encouraged to take that stance at a time when they're highly stressed; they might later regret their actions. If they had no interest in RFA, they probably wouldn't have run in the first place. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- I actually came to the conclusion myself today after seeing how much Balloonman was getting criticized in his RfB for how much time he spent on RFA (in proportion to other activities) that I need to spend even less time on RFA, myself. But I don't think it's a wacky idea that people who talk and vote together on a regular basis could be called a "community", given that you often hear about the "black community", the "gay community", etc. And, despite the impression of people that don't know RFA well that we're all jerks with hearts of stone, yes, many of us do feel torn by close votes, especially when they fail. We haven't figured out a solution yet, but it's not for lack of trying; WT:RFA is the most edited page on en.wp, and RFA has probably accounted for more reform proposals (all voted down) than any other page. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 23:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
RfA thankspam
Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.
Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC) |
Denbot (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Pelléas et Mélisande (opera)
Dravecky (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The portrait of Boccaccio
As you have seen, user Rez88 goes on and on removing the image of Boccaccio. I asked him why in his user's page, and wrote a comment in the discussion page about Giovanni Boccaccio. Is there anything that can be done to stop this annoying behaviour?--Broletto (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. ;-) I suppose it's just a matter of time before Vienna2 blanks it for fifth time. I've reported it to ANI but so far it's been ignored. They're all too busy participating in random {{{{dramas}}}}} to pay attention to a clear, straightforward issue needing admin assistance. By the way, your edits on Pelléas et Mélisande are brilliant! So thanks for that too. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- I noticed that on ANI. I knew that no one else was going to notice because your request didn't include enough DRAMA. "your edits on Pelléas et Mélisande are brilliant!" Thanks. I haven't even finished there yet (more about the opera itself to come). --Folantin (talk) 13:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
St Bart's
I was amused by this alternative translation of the French WP article: "Because of the hammering of the preachers, capuchin S in the highest degree, the marriage of a princess of France with a Protestant is to them a horror. The Parlement of Paris itself decides to be sulky the ceremony of the marriage. The Parisian people very went up." and so on. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, next thing they'll be saying Paris vaut une messe means "Paris is a bit of a mess." Sorry about the pics, by the way. I'm useless with images but I didn't want to see them all on the right-hand side of the page. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Changes to Portal:Opera - Discussion
I've opened a discussion on this at the OP. [11]. All contributions welcome. (I'm notifying all OP members who have participated in the discussions about the portal) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. I’m fine with that. This is not something so "uncommon" in WIKI. I just hope after the frenzy makeover party has over, someone will take care of the portal - Jay (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
à propos...
I had a student (at a UK university which shall remain nameless) who despite my long and frequent discourses to the class about plagiarism, submitted an essay consisting entirely of verbatim copy from the text book that I wrote.;-) Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh dear. The lack of basic common sense reminds me of this piece of recent news [12]. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Google Books
These authors all refer amazigh and amazon as synonimous:
- http://books.google.com/books?id=tHeoE5iJ1-sC&pg=PR12&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR#PPA22,M1 (page 22)
- http://books.google.com/books?id=LerKCvsyE6EC&pg=PA61&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR#PPA61,M1 (page 61)
- http://books.google.com/books?id=3ioj1w25y5kC&pg=PA76&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR (pg. 76)
Jackiestud (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Yr speech
- You said: What are you talking about? I know what etymology means. I've just given you the opinion of experts as to what the etymology of "Amazigh" (or its variants) might be. It has nothing to do with "Amazons". --Folantin (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- There are MANY other books which use the words, the geographical references and the amazigh and the amazons history as synonimous, as having the very same roots and meaning. Jackiestud (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- http://books.google.com/books?id=D3uADrmWEAMC&pg=PA189&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR (pg. 189).
- http://books.google.com/books?id=RW3KuMNeHQsC&pg=PA155&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR (pg. 155).
- http://books.google.com/books?id=b7KbLLjzuRgC&pg=PA130&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR#PPA130,M1 (pg. 133).
Jackiestud (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- All these SIX BOOKS appear to have the very same origin/opinion of Cadogan. Jackiestud (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, Ups, Iam sorry, but now we have come to a point that this is ridiculous. First you said amazon and amazigh have no links. And now there is the need of specific author? LOL!!Jackiestud (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- So you will not accept these sources/books? Jackiestud (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Expertise
Do you consider they have some sort of expertise? Like etymology, mythology, greek histpry, world history, ancient history? Jackiestud (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Some of them are cranks, none of them are experts in the subject of the article, i.e. the Berbers. They have no deep knowledge of North African history/anthropology or linguistics (especially in the field of Afro-Asiatic languages). --Folantin (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Professor of History
- It´s an incredible lack of expertise.
- In this work, which covers thousands of years and spans the globe, Linda Grant DePauw explores the varied roles women have played in war. De Pauw depicts women as victims and as warriors; as nurses, spies, sex workers, and wives and mothers of soldiers; as warrior queens leading armies into battle, and as baggage carriers marching in the rear.
- Believe me or not it was published by the University of Oklahoma Press and has 432 pages!! http://books.google.com/books?id=tHeoE5iJ1-sC&pg=PR12&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&ei=hGrKSfPNO5i8kgTbt6TkBg&hl=pt-BR
- They explicitly refer amazons and amazigh. These are books published by her: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?ATH=Linda+Grant+De+Pauw.
- Currently Dr. De Pauw is Professor of History at George Washington University
- I wil send an email with this talk to her OK?? Jackiestud (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I could copy the email to you....Jackiestud (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- "which covers thousands of years and spans the globe". Meaning she is not a specialist in this area. Is she an expert in Berber Studies and North African History like Michael Brett of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London? Does she speak Tamazight? --Folantin (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Folantin, I don't see why we shouldn't explore this Amazon-Amazigh thing, there is far crankier stuff on Wikipedia. As always, it just needs to be put in proper context. I would be interested in where this idea was first proposed. The Linda Grant De Pauw reference may serve to show that it is repeated until today. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's nonsense and I don't really see how it's significant nonsense. You could create pages and pages of information on "Wrong Things People Have Believed About the Berbers" - the subject attracts all kinds of race obsessives (including people who think the Berbers are related to the Scots), Arab and Berber nationalists and other POV-pushers, so it's bad enough as it is without throwing "matriarchal studies" and 19th century linguistic doodlings into the mix. There are far more influential pseudo-historical ideas which aren't in the article (not that they necessarily should be), most notably the Medieval belief that the Berbers originated in the Yemen, which was promoted by Ibn Khaldun and others. It's not a good page anyway but I don't want to see it get worse. It's a subject that needs a real expert to sort out because it's a political minefield. I know something about the subject (and I have the book by Brett and Fentress) but probably not enough to be fully confident of doing a good job of revising the page. --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Amazons is MUCH better than it used to be. The Amazigh thing also drew my attention to "Libyan Amazons", who do appear to figure in ancient writers. We'll need to live with the fact that "Amazons" is a topic of fantasy, and the items discussed in the article will therefore be fantastical. --dab (𒁳) 12:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Nadir Shah
Dear Folantin,
I just saw that this chap also hit Nadir Shah. It seems we have a vandal among us: 99.228.164.238 I am trying to fix the Ranjit Singh article and this guy has hit it twice.
Any advice?
Gorkhali (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- If this has been a long-term problem, it might be worth contacting an admin. I'll give User:Dougweller a buzz, although since it's Sunday he might not be around until tomorrow. It's possible the articles could be "semi-protected" which would prevent anonymous IPs like this one from editing them. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've done a bit, as has another editor. Semi is for vandalism and this is a bit different, at the moment. If he continues to mislable articles... Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Diego de Torres Villarroel
Hello, I don't know why you erase this article for the WikiProject Endangered Languages. This have no sense, because any project can select the articles are working in. One article can we work by som many WikiProjects and not onle for the "closer". As exemple you can see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aramaic_language. So I ask for you to let us work in this article. --Auslli (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it might be nice to have some details of what Torres Villarroel wrote in Leonese, because as far as I'm aware, his most famous works are in Castilian. But I don't see why you need to do this through Project:Endangered Languages which should be about endangered languages, not everybody who's written anything in said languages. Also, I don't see the relevance of your example of the "Aramaic language". I don't see the project tag there and even if it is there, it would make my point: Aramaic is a language not a writer. --Folantin (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- To tell the truth, I can't understand this sentence at all: "One article can we work by som many WikiProjects and not onle for the "closer"." --Folantin (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I say that there are some pages that contain more than one project in its talk page, and there is no problem with that. The reason I include Torres Villarroel in that project is because the task I develope in WikiProject Endangered languages, right now, is categorizing the articles about Leonese language, like associations, literature, writers and so more. A language is more than an article, (like a country is much more than an article. "France" has villages, musics, sport teams, writers...) and like you can check, most of the times are Categories for languages. In this sense, I'm creating articles for completing the knowledge of Endangered languages (at the moment I'm working with Leonese) and improving those who already exist. So I identify that kind of articles like "making part of a wikiproject", and I see no problem in having this tag, with all the other ones that other kind of projects would consider. This only improves the quality of the article, because it will give more information to the visitor. Thank you for your comprehension, and excuse me for the long text.--Auslli (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I have a problem with projects that simply tag the talk pages of barely relevant articles then contribute nothing to them. I don't see what Project:Endangered Languages has to offer the Torres Villarroel article. Besides which, I made reasonably substantial contributions there without being a member of any project which might have Villarroel within its scope. Project Tags are not there as an alternative (or addition) to categories and there are moves to cut down on the spamming of talk pages with excessive project tags. I am a member of three classical music projects (Opera, Composers and Classical Music) and we co-ordinate our efforts so only the relevant project gets to tag the article. I still don't see the relevance of the Aramaic language to this talk page but I note you have rated Aramaic (the language in which parts of the Bible are composed) as "Low importance" to the Languages Project whereas Leonese is rated "Mid". I think you lack a certain objectivity there. --Folantin (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's easy, Endangered languages can offer to Torres Villarroel article information about its Leonese language influence that there was not before. Let me show you I can do it, please. I categoriza aramaic as "low" importance because, like you can see it has the maximum qualification, so the efforts of the Project could be more necessary in other articles that can be reasonabily improved. I hope you see everything has its reason, and I expose my arguments to you. I can be wrong, but I think what I do is the best for wikipedia. What about let me the tag some days and if you see the project cannnot offer anything to the article erase the tag? Thank you very much.--Auslli (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- So what else is Project:Endangered Languages planning to do for Mr. Villarroel and why is it so important they have their tag on his page? Be aware of Wikipedia's policies on undue weight. --Folantin (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm providing more information about him, some about their contirbutions in Leonese language, some not, but like he wrote in Leonese I'm so interested in improving the article, like you have seen.--Auslli (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's nice work but I'm not seeing what's Leonese in there. Maybe we should ask about the scope of the project at the Endangered Languages talk page. --Folantin (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- The only scope I have is improving the articles that have some relationship with Leonese language. So, what I want are better articles. This is the only objective I have, not to improving them in their "leonese language point of view" but all of them that I can. One tag more or less is not important for me. The only important was showing that I had the compromise of improving them. Thanl you for your words and my apologuizes if I did it not rightly.--Auslli (talk) 08:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's nice work but I'm not seeing what's Leonese in there. Maybe we should ask about the scope of the project at the Endangered Languages talk page. --Folantin (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm providing more information about him, some about their contirbutions in Leonese language, some not, but like he wrote in Leonese I'm so interested in improving the article, like you have seen.--Auslli (talk) 07:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- So what else is Project:Endangered Languages planning to do for Mr. Villarroel and why is it so important they have their tag on his page? Be aware of Wikipedia's policies on undue weight. --Folantin (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's easy, Endangered languages can offer to Torres Villarroel article information about its Leonese language influence that there was not before. Let me show you I can do it, please. I categoriza aramaic as "low" importance because, like you can see it has the maximum qualification, so the efforts of the Project could be more necessary in other articles that can be reasonabily improved. I hope you see everything has its reason, and I expose my arguments to you. I can be wrong, but I think what I do is the best for wikipedia. What about let me the tag some days and if you see the project cannnot offer anything to the article erase the tag? Thank you very much.--Auslli (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I have a problem with projects that simply tag the talk pages of barely relevant articles then contribute nothing to them. I don't see what Project:Endangered Languages has to offer the Torres Villarroel article. Besides which, I made reasonably substantial contributions there without being a member of any project which might have Villarroel within its scope. Project Tags are not there as an alternative (or addition) to categories and there are moves to cut down on the spamming of talk pages with excessive project tags. I am a member of three classical music projects (Opera, Composers and Classical Music) and we co-ordinate our efforts so only the relevant project gets to tag the article. I still don't see the relevance of the Aramaic language to this talk page but I note you have rated Aramaic (the language in which parts of the Bible are composed) as "Low importance" to the Languages Project whereas Leonese is rated "Mid". I think you lack a certain objectivity there. --Folantin (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I say that there are some pages that contain more than one project in its talk page, and there is no problem with that. The reason I include Torres Villarroel in that project is because the task I develope in WikiProject Endangered languages, right now, is categorizing the articles about Leonese language, like associations, literature, writers and so more. A language is more than an article, (like a country is much more than an article. "France" has villages, musics, sport teams, writers...) and like you can check, most of the times are Categories for languages. In this sense, I'm creating articles for completing the knowledge of Endangered languages (at the moment I'm working with Leonese) and improving those who already exist. So I identify that kind of articles like "making part of a wikiproject", and I see no problem in having this tag, with all the other ones that other kind of projects would consider. This only improves the quality of the article, because it will give more information to the visitor. Thank you for your comprehension, and excuse me for the long text.--Auslli (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- To tell the truth, I can't understand this sentence at all: "One article can we work by som many WikiProjects and not onle for the "closer"." --Folantin (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
You may want to comment
At Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Talk:Gdansk.2FVote and threads below, which are quite related to the battle of Wilno/Vilnius/Vilna issue. Thanks for your input so far! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't particularly want to re-open the whole Gdanzig vote but I can see the lack of consistency between the use of Wilno/Vilnius and Danzig/Gdansk on Wikipedia. I'm just throwing out a few ideas to see what's going on. I might transfer a few comments to that conversation later on. --Folantin (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I also don't want to reopen the Gdanzig vote; I want to incorporate it into the NCGN guideline, for which it is currently an exception. I think that it worked well, and should become a precedent for future solutions; further, there are confusing inconsistencies in the guideline which need to be ironed out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- F, I would appreciate a response to the Gscholar results pointing towards an overwhelming trend in Vilnius usage for this era. If you would like rationales - don't know how often you've tried this, but academics are often surprisingly responsive to emails, altho they would need to go thru OTRS to be posted on WP - a procedure I don't know, and they probably don't know it either. I have gotten quick responses from E. O. Wilson, Scott Turow, and Jan Harold Brunvand, among others. I'd bet S.C. Rowell would respond and so would the Cambridge Histories authors. Novickas (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just out of interest, what are the Gscholar results for Vilna in this era? Rationales are usually to be found in the prefaces to the books. The Cambridge Histories series might have a general policy on naming conventions. If not, then maybe it is worth contacting some academics, but it should probably be a general question about NE European names in the 17th century, i.e. not just Vilnius/Wilno but Gdansk/Danzig, Wroclaw/Breslau, Tallinn/Reval, Tartu/Dorpat, Klaipeda/Memel. Plus Lviv/Lwów of course and - why not? - Kraków/Cracow and Kyiv/Kiev (also wider choice of Ukrainian/Belarusian, Russian or Polish names for "Ruthenian" towns). --Folantin (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Incidentally, why is Rowell relevant to this era? Lithuania ascending: a pagan empire within east-central Europe, 1295-1345 isn't about the 17th century. It's quite obvious that Vilnius would be the reasonable choice for this part of the Middle Ages (and Wilno would probably be irrelevant). --Folantin (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just out of interest, what are the Gscholar results for Vilna in this era? Rationales are usually to be found in the prefaces to the books. The Cambridge Histories series might have a general policy on naming conventions. If not, then maybe it is worth contacting some academics, but it should probably be a general question about NE European names in the 17th century, i.e. not just Vilnius/Wilno but Gdansk/Danzig, Wroclaw/Breslau, Tallinn/Reval, Tartu/Dorpat, Klaipeda/Memel. Plus Lviv/Lwów of course and - why not? - Kraków/Cracow and Kyiv/Kiev (also wider choice of Ukrainian/Belarusian, Russian or Polish names for "Ruthenian" towns). --Folantin (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- F, I would appreciate a response to the Gscholar results pointing towards an overwhelming trend in Vilnius usage for this era. If you would like rationales - don't know how often you've tried this, but academics are often surprisingly responsive to emails, altho they would need to go thru OTRS to be posted on WP - a procedure I don't know, and they probably don't know it either. I have gotten quick responses from E. O. Wilson, Scott Turow, and Jan Harold Brunvand, among others. I'd bet S.C. Rowell would respond and so would the Cambridge Histories authors. Novickas (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I also don't want to reopen the Gdanzig vote; I want to incorporate it into the NCGN guideline, for which it is currently an exception. I think that it worked well, and should become a precedent for future solutions; further, there are confusing inconsistencies in the guideline which need to be ironed out. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Re Vilna: Gscholar results over all articles - 2,040 English pages for vilna (17th OR seventeenth) century; articles since 2000 - 892 English pages for vilna (17th OR seventeenth) century. Rationales - I don't think the Cambridge Histories would constrain their people with a policy, but could check. I poked around the Cambridge H. of Russia, didn't find rationales, but it's an anthology; maybe the author of the piece discussing Vilnius has published one elsewhere. Dov Levin (Berghan Books, 2000) offers his rationale for Vilna: "The names of the large cities of Kaunas, Vilnius, and Siauliai are written in the form that was accepted over generations of Lithuanian-Jewish historiography: Kovno, Vilna, and Shavli." [13] Re S.C. Rowell, he's published at least one piece about the Baltic Region in the 17th and 18th centuries [14]. So his work includes the century in question. Regards, Novickas (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I don't think Lithuania ascending: a pagan empire within east-central Europe, 1295-1345 can be used as evidence for the 17th century. --Folantin (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not being used as evidence; it's the Cambridge History Russia usage of Vilnius that's the strong scholarly ref. Because this series, aLong with 3 encys., is mentioned at naming conventions. Novickas (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, sure. As I pointed out myself, Stone uses Vilnius likewise (although he gives his rationale). As I hope I've explained by now I see it as a matter of historical periodisation vs. use of modern names (otherwise it's just Lithuanian vs. Polish editors). I'm not just concerned about this page, but I'm interested in the wider implications. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- That page is already, what, 90KB, which is why I brought some stuff up here. It's hard enough to analyze usage trends without getting into rationales. Don't you think the existence of rationales, and whether they should play a part in naming decisions, would be better discussed at the naming conventions page? Novickas (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- OK, sure. As I pointed out myself, Stone uses Vilnius likewise (although he gives his rationale). As I hope I've explained by now I see it as a matter of historical periodisation vs. use of modern names (otherwise it's just Lithuanian vs. Polish editors). I'm not just concerned about this page, but I'm interested in the wider implications. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's not being used as evidence; it's the Cambridge History Russia usage of Vilnius that's the strong scholarly ref. Because this series, aLong with 3 encys., is mentioned at naming conventions. Novickas (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I don't think Lithuania ascending: a pagan empire within east-central Europe, 1295-1345 can be used as evidence for the 17th century. --Folantin (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Re Vilna: Gscholar results over all articles - 2,040 English pages for vilna (17th OR seventeenth) century; articles since 2000 - 892 English pages for vilna (17th OR seventeenth) century. Rationales - I don't think the Cambridge Histories would constrain their people with a policy, but could check. I poked around the Cambridge H. of Russia, didn't find rationales, but it's an anthology; maybe the author of the piece discussing Vilnius has published one elsewhere. Dov Levin (Berghan Books, 2000) offers his rationale for Vilna: "The names of the large cities of Kaunas, Vilnius, and Siauliai are written in the form that was accepted over generations of Lithuanian-Jewish historiography: Kovno, Vilna, and Shavli." [13] Re S.C. Rowell, he's published at least one piece about the Baltic Region in the 17th and 18th centuries [14]. So his work includes the century in question. Regards, Novickas (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I think that's a very odd, inconsistent list. Tbilisi/Tiflis but not Reval/Tallinn? What's Erevan/Yerevan doing there? That's simply a difference in the transliteration of Armenian of no political or historical significance that I know of. Warsaw (Warszawa), um, OK, but no English academic sources use Warszawa. Seems they've got one rule for the Baltic states and another for everywhere else. (Oh yeah, and Frunze has been Bishkek since 1991).--Folantin (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- On second thought - I want to back off here, in the sense of discontinuing the discussion. I'm more comfortable with established institutions' decisions than with those of WP editors. If WP editors are influential enough to change those institutional policies - more power to them. Call me a conservative. Novickas (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Pais, patria, pater, pagan
Pls consider the etymology of pater as a homeland as it is translated in our Brazialian National Anthem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_national_anthem). Homeland (country) >> patria >> pater > pagan. Herre in Brazil this is very basic etymology. Jackiestud (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- http://www.myetymology.com/latin/patria.html
- http://www.myetymology.com/english/pagan.html
- http://www.myetymology.com/latin/pagus.html
- They all have country in common 17:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiestud (talk • contribs)
- You've already had at least two perfectly good explanations of the terms "pater", "patria" and the unrelated "pagus". Here they are again. You can spend your forthcoming block scrutinising them:
- "Patria comes from pater." Yep, just as the English word "fatherland" comes from "father" not the other way around. I know of no etymological relationship between "pater" and "pagus". (from me, Folantin)
- Hello, I saw this popping up on my watchlist. I am not sure what exactly this argument is about, but pater (and derivative patria) and pagus (and derivative paganus) are not considered relatives of each other. The first is a basal word that appears in many IE languages (Greek pater, Gothic fadar, Sanskrit pitar etc.), while according to the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae the second derives from the same root as the verb pango (to fasten). Paese in its turn comes from pagensis, an adjective deriving from pagus (as does paganus) (from Iblardi). --Folantin (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- You've already had at least two perfectly good explanations of the terms "pater", "patria" and the unrelated "pagus". Here they are again. You can spend your forthcoming block scrutinising them:
Babylon dictiõnary
- Why don´t ou try to translate using any dictionary these two words: pátria and país.
- Response from babylon:
- pátria (f)
- n. native country, country; home; fatherland, homeland
- país
n. country, nation; state; land, region Jackiestud (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- País dervives from pagan'
- ~ Jackiestud (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
french nationa lanthem
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise
- The first paragraph: Les enafnts de la Patrie or Arise, children of the Fatherland.
- Patrie >> patria >> pater >> país >>paese >> pagan >> country >> fatherland (http://www.myetymology.com/french/pais.html) Jackiestud (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Nope, "patria" and its Romance descendants have nothing to do with "paganus" which comes from "pagus" (a "rural district or canton"). Pater patriae ("Father of the Fatherland") is perhaps the highest compliment you could pay a Roman. If you called him paganus, however, he would probably be furious, since it implies "yokel" or "bumpkin". --Folantin (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, before a country becomes a country it is a rural district (a village)... than afterwards it wll become a country. So back there, its origins it is a rural district, a village.. which may by war or some other reason become a country. Jackiestud (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Very beautiful explanation --but there is a timeline in between these compliments. Can you offer a link where I could check it? I doubt it, since a yokel only became a fatherland within a religious context. I´ve offered many sources --you haven´t offered a single one. Jackiestud (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hum?? http://books.google.com.br/books?id=k3NH7dv1OfUC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=a+pagan+becomes+a+pater+familias&source=bl&ots=vvl6YqdGho&sig=ibCLH7UJg0pFdwKvK8P_qGfarZk&hl=pt-BR&ei=fD3aSZMI24y2B7y5mOEP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
- See this? A pater versus pagan. A tremedosu effort to move from pagan to pater.... Any comments from you? Jackiestud (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
good grief. Note that this chap is also responsible for the Amazon and Amzigh as synonimous hilarity. I truly believe Wikipedia is better off without that kind of "contributors". --dab (𒁳) 18:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, indeed. I think they're heading for a block pretty soon though [16]. --Folantin (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
...Colour me amazed. It was quite good before, but now, it's fantastic. I'd suggest that you nominate this for Featured article when you're done.
There are a few minor things that would need done - expand the lead a little bit, maybe some light copyediting (and even then, not much), and a handful of places where you might be challenged for a reference (e.g. "Yet, as Debussy admitted privately, there are themes associated with each of the three main characters in Pelléas." - they'd probably object to that without a source for the admission) - but it's an excellent article, it deserves wider exposure (which featured article status will get it), and the additional work would be nothing compared to what's already done. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot. Yeah, I was aware the lead needed revising and I'll do it when I finish the rest (hey, click "edit this page", scroll down and see my hidden comment). I'm still expanding the "Character of the Work" section and the sections on its composition need revising for various reasons. The synopsis is an experiment in doing a very, very detailed plot summary (of an opera where there is little in the way of external action). I did it straight from the libretto and, consequently, some of it is still a little "choppy". The question is is it worth going through an FAC just so the page can be thoroughly vandalised for 24 hours? ;). --Folantin (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed your previous involvement in the article about this historian, could you please help us to resolve a dispute with regard to use of certain sources in the article? Please see the talk of that article. Thanks. Grandmaster 05:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'll have a look. User:Dbachmann also took part in the revision of that page (and the related "History" one if it still exists)*. My understanding is that mainstream academic opinion doubts the history was written at the time traditionally claimed. --Folantin (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Update:* Yes it does: History of Armenia (Movses Khorenatsi). See the comment I added there from Thomson: "According to Robert Thomson, "there are indications that the book itself was written after the 5th century. Not only does Movses use sources not available in Armenia at that time, he refers to persons and places attested only in the sixth or seventh centuries." Robert K. Thomson, "Armenian Literary Culture through the Eleventh Century", in R.G. Hovahanissian (ed.), Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times(Volume 1, 2004). --Folantin (talk) 07:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
RfA comments
You are correct that the comment was added after the RfA was marked "expired"; as soon as the RfA time ended, the nominee began writing remarks like this to discredit as many opposers as possible, and continued until the RfA was closed—I assume he knew the RfA was going to fail and wanted to leave his mark. Anyway, I was of the opinion that leaving them would do no harm, since they really reflect much more poorly on the nominee himself than on the opposers...but if you want to remove it that's fine. I won't revert again. Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. That's a valid point of view and one I'd be inclined to follow. There's so much slander against so many other users on there that it's probably selfish of me to remove just that one example (and I've just noticed there are further sock puppet insinuations against Akhilleus and me). Let's leave it for a bit though and see how it pans out. You never know, maybe Ottava's account has been compromised. After all, at the beginning of the RfA he magnanimously declared: "If you want to oppose me, feel free. I wont hold anything against anyone nor challenge it. If other people want to badger opposers (or even badger supporters!) that's fine. I'm staying out of it." I can't believe this is the same person. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry!
Hey Folantin, notice that the comment wasn't just about you and me--User:Dougweller is your puppet too. You'd think with 3 accounts, we'd be able to get more done around here... --Akhilleus (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yep; what I wouldn't give for my sockpuppets to be admins, too... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- And they used their magic admin powers to prevent OR's landslide victory by, um, making two out of 108 oppose votes. Add my one to that and he was clearly sunk. Akhilleus and Doug are clearly me because we edit history articles and nobody else on Wikipedia does that.--Folantin (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Being on the receiving end of baseless accusations of sockpuppetry is a rite of passage for Wikipedians. Of course, nobody will ever answer the question -- why isn't making baseless accusations considered disruptive by itself? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, you'll know from Talk:Battle of Vilnius (1655) that Akhilleus and I are unlikely to be sock puppets. --Folantin (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
A chuckle
- "He gave what little wealth he had
- To build a house for fools and mad;
- And showed by one satiric touch,
- No nation wanted it so much."
Oh the delightful ironies of edit-warring over nationalist trivialities on the Swift article. Maybe he should save his saeva indignatio for something of actual significance. Antandrus (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Or, from a slightly different context, God's weary comment at the Day of Judgement:
Barnstar
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
Folantin, thank you for all your effort and tireless expansion on the article of Debussy's Pelléas et Mélisande (opera). Keep the good work! Caspian blue 02:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC) |
- Hey, thanks. It's nowhere near finished yet. Check back in a month's time. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Torres Villarroel
Hello. I've retagged for Endangered Languages Wikiproject the article. There is no rule that prohibits to do it, so I think it's your turn see WP:PROJGUIDE. You must show it must be not tagged. I think that's right, because in 2 weeks we made what you want and none said that I can't tag an article.--Auslli (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- As you know, I've asked for a third opinion at the project. Let's wait to see what it is (assuming the project is still active). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC).
- The project is active because I'm active, but I want to tell you that there is no rule in wikipedia, and I refer you to WP:PROJGUIDE that says that tagging it is incorrect. In this sense, I believe it must be tagged until you can show it is not correct. There is no argument but your opinion for not to tag it, so I believe it's correct to let the banner until the third opinion appears or you find something opposite to tag it.--Auslli (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Dubious Category
Be careful, Folantin. The vandal that created that category has a history of deleting editor pages. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, he can do that if he likes but it might reduce his Wiki-lifespan considerably. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not remove the Anti-Turkism tag. It is relevant.
Please do not remove the Anti-Turkism tag. It is relevant. Otherwise the same should apply to the anti-armenianism tag. It would be hypocritical and a double standart if it is removed as the organizations adn people I tagged have fought against the Tukish state or nation. Just as it is the case in the Anti-Armenianism tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saguamundi (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND and vandalising user pages is a very silly thing to do. --Folantin (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you are truly editing from a neutral point of view, it should be impossible to tell what your political affiliation is, yes? Would anyone mistake you for an Armenian? How about a Kurd? Think about it. We take WP:NPOV really, really seriously here, and nationalist edit-warriors quickly get shown the door. Antandrus (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just like facts have a liberal bias, facts may also have a bias of That Evil Tribe Down The River. There are a lot of people on Wikipedia who would love nothing more than brand anybody who dares to say that some countries recognise Republic of Kosovo as "evil Kosovo separatists", and there are just as many people on Wikipedia who would love nothing more than brand anybody who dares to say that some countries do not recognise Kosovo as a sovereign entity as "evil Serbian chauvinists".
- You may be as neutral as Chih Sung-tzu himself, and some people will still claim you've got anti-them bias because you don't agree with them. Sigh. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
nationalist edit-warriors quickly get shown the door -- I wish. Sigh. We could do with a few sane admins willing to do that. --dab (𒁳) 18:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- You'll find some of Wikipedia's worst pages among the "Anti-X Nation/People" articles. Zones where Original Research is king and anecdotes are solid fact. --Folantin (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
The Category of Anti-(Nationality) in this case Anti-Turkism, Anti-Armenianism etc...
The Category Anti-Turkism page is relevant as the "organizations" (some of whom are listed as terrorits organizations by the U.S. and the E.U.) and people who fought, fought the Turkish state and/or individuals for ideological/nationalistic/political purposes as the Turkish state was an obstacle for thier goals. In case of nationalism Anti-Turkism is totally relevant and applicable as their nationalisms and actions clashed or still clashes with Turkish nationalism and the Turkish state, and vice versa. The same applies for the Category Anti-Armenianism. So for the sake of partiality either these two categories should be erased or should stay. The same applies for the other Anti-(Nationality) Categories as well. But not one or the other.
P.S. I am neither Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian or Greek; I am Iranian if anybody was curious about me. But I don't think that is relevant either.
Saguamundi —Preceding undated comment added 09:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC).
- Well, Iran is an ethnically diverse place... but your ethnicity should be irrelevant. "Anti-Turkism" implies that anyone who challenges the Turkish government for any reason must be doing so out of prejudice against Turkic people. It's pretty libellous to put, say, Taner Akçam in this category. Wikipedia is not the place to try to enforce Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code. --Folantin (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Putting an academician and other persons who did not participate in any violent acts, in this category was excessive, I agree, but for the organizations some of whom are listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. and the E.U. and some of the individuals who are/were leaders or members of these organizations and are branded as terrorists, and did order or participate in violent acts (such as assinations or bombings) is entirely appropriate. --Saguamundi —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC).
do not spam user talk pages and...
..2. regarding this: Good luck, but I promise to revert you in matter of seconds if your edits are disruptive. 1. Use talk pages of the articles you edit and not my talk page. Clear?--Xashaiar (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do you actually understand anything? Trying to communicate with you is not "spamming". Just because you are incapable of giving a rational answer to my enquiries, it doesn't mean you can respond like this. --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
April 2009
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Shah Abbas I. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. your edit here is unacceptable. You should not delete information and put wrong info. Xashaiar (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)