User talk:Peter cohen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Peter cohen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Mak (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Tildes! 2 Pinkwind 3 Hi Peter! 4 Chelsea 5 SatyrBot 6 G&S 7 Prince of Homburg 8 Categories of operatic interest not to be tagged by robot 9 The Silver Tassie 10 List of categories for the bot User:Peter cohen/opera categories 11 Opera Project Cat List 12 Re: Theobromine GA nomination 13 Thanks Peter 14 Categories 15 Three revert Rule 16 re:WP:WPO 17 I am so sorry 18 Category reform 19 re: Your post on User talk:88.160.247.46 20 Re: Troilus 21 Wagnerites and Anti-Wagnerites 22 Fontaine je ne boirai pas de ton eau 23 Thanks, I appreciate it 24 category 25 Thanks 26 Copy-editing, as requested 27 Thanks 28 Mother Teresa 29 Wagner Project 30 Sorry for confusion 31 Should we delete this list 32 Your recent edits 33 Invitation to join opera project 34 Die Feen 35 Your recent edits 36 GA/R re-review? 37 Your recent edit to Sophocles 38 congrats on Troilus 39 Die Hochzeit 40 New antisemitism 41 Prince Igor 42 Siegfried Idyll 43 Parsifal 44 Backlog at WP:GAR 45 Winifred Wagner 46 Assessments notice draft 47 Re: Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen/Comments 48 Rosalind Plowright discussion 49 WikiProject Literature proposal 50 T and C 51 Speedy deletion of Bayreuth canon 52 Back to Troilus 53 Chamberlain 54 David Irving, British English, etc. 55 More Chamberlain 56 Troilus in Italy 57 No, no Troilus suggestions 58 List of anarchists 59 8th London WIkipedia Meetup: POSTPONED! 60 Carloss Latuff 61 Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus 62 A new Oxbridge user box 63 Stop the War Coalition 64 Please sort out overzealous auto-block 65 Singer categories 66 More care needed 67 State terrorism 68 Wagner's Rhinemaidens 69 Hummus bi tahini 70 Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion 71 Wikipedian London Meetup 72 May 2008 73 Hummus history 74 Reminder Sunday Lunchtime 75 Re reporting that phrase, which I won't repeat. 76 A small favour

[edit] Tildes!

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

[edit] Pinkwind

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

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

[edit] Hi Peter!

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

[edit] Chelsea

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

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

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

[edit] SatyrBot

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

[edit] G&S

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

[edit] Prince of Homburg

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

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

[edit] Categories of operatic interest not to be tagged by robot

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The Silver Tassie

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Opera Project Cat List

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

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Opera#Category_listing

this points to:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Catlist

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

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

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

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

[edit] Re: Theobromine GA nomination

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

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

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

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

[edit] Thanks Peter

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

Thanks for your comments and input.

Kind regards, Munatobe7

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

Hi Peter,

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

[edit] Categories

I always assumed that if East Jerusalem was not regarded as part of Israel by the international community, then by default it was part of the West Bank. --Timeshifter 22:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

From East Jerusalem: "During the Six-Day War of 1967 Israel captured the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and eventually incorporated 6.4 km² of Jordanian Jerusalem and 64 km² of the nearby West Bank into the municipality of Jerusalem, including several villages and lands from neighboring villages and towns.[3]"

I think that East Jerusalem is considered to be part of the West Bank in the sense of the West Bank as a geographical entity captured during the 1967 war. --Timeshifter 23:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Three revert Rule

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

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

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

[edit] re:WP:WPO

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

[edit] I am so sorry

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

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

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

66.65.46.186 21:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category reform

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

[edit] re: Your post on User talk:88.160.247.46

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

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

[edit] Re: Troilus

My pleasure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wagnerites and Anti-Wagnerites

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

[edit] Fontaine je ne boirai pas de ton eau

Hi,

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

• Image:Troilos Polyxene Louvre E662.jpg
• Image:Akhilleus Louvre E662.jpg

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

[edit] Thanks, I appreciate it

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

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

[edit] category

Hi. Can you have a look at

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7#Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories.

You commented on the previous discussion about it, so I thought you might be interested in this discussion. --Timeshifter 14:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

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

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

Why the problem?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Copy-editing, as requested

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

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

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

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

[edit] Thanks

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

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

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

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

[edit] Mother Teresa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wagner Project

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

[edit] Sorry for confusion

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

[edit] Should we delete this list

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

[edit] Your recent edits

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

[edit] Invitation to join opera project

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

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

[edit] Die Feen

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

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

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

[edit] Your recent edits

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

[edit] GA/R re-review?

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

[edit] Your recent edit to Sophocles

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

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

[edit] congrats on Troilus

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

[edit] Die Hochzeit

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

[edit] New antisemitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Prince Igor

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

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

[edit] Siegfried Idyll

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

[edit] Parsifal

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

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

[edit] Backlog at WP:GAR

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

[edit] Winifred Wagner

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

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

[edit] Assessments notice draft

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

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

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

[edit] Re: Talk:Der Ring des Nibelungen/Comments

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

[edit] Rosalind Plowright discussion

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

[edit] WikiProject Literature proposal

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

[edit] T and C

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

[edit] Speedy deletion of Bayreuth canon

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

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

[edit] Back to Troilus

Hi,

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

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

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

[edit] Chamberlain

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

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

[edit] David Irving, British English, etc.

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

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

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

[edit] More Chamberlain

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

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

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

[edit] Troilus in Italy

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

[edit] No, no Troilus suggestions

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

[edit] List of anarchists

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

[edit] 8th London WIkipedia Meetup: POSTPONED!

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

[edit] Carloss Latuff

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

[edit] Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

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

[edit] A new Oxbridge user box

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

[edit] Stop the War Coalition

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

[edit] Please sort out overzealous auto-block

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

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

[edit] Singer categories

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

[edit] More care needed

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

[edit] State terrorism

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

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

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

[edit] Wagner's Rhinemaidens

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

[edit] Hummus bi tahini

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

[edit] Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

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

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wikipedian London Meetup

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

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

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

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

[edit] May 2008

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

[edit] Hummus history

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

[edit] Reminder Sunday Lunchtime

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

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

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

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

[edit] A small favour

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

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

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

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

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

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