User talk:Folantin/Archive 6

ತೀರ್ಥಹಳ್ಳಿ

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)

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)

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)

I've been complaining about editing functions being taken over by poorly scripted, untested bots like Polbot and DumZiBot (see here) but without the issue attracting much interest. --Kleinzach 01:14, 17 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)

Just a note to say that there is further discussion about this on the Village Pump, here. --Kleinzach 05:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I won't have time to look into this until at least the weekend (if then). --Folantin (talk) 11:51, 9 October 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)

It's not just an anonymous IP, it's an open proxy on a California school district network. This is Ariobarza's logged-out IP address. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Commented at ANI. --Folantin (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65

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)

Hello, Folantin. You have new messages at Voceditenore's talk page.
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)

List of operas by Rameau

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)

Having one table to sort means that you can isolate not only genres, but cities, theatres, librettists etc. You can't do this if you have multiple tables. In any case, doesn't the existing first table actually mix operas and ballets? --Kleinzach 10:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine, fine, but this is not a matter of definitions - which can easily be fixed in headings/article title - it's about sorting. --Kleinzach 10:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please think about the sorting issue. There's no hurry. And please look at the way this same situation has been handled elsewhere (see above). --Kleinzach 10:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's to do with serving the reader - nothing to do with inaccuracy. If you look at the other articles you will see that they do not contain any misrepresentation (though they may of course have the odd inaccuracy). Anyway I'm signing off now. --Kleinzach 11:09, 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.

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. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's all academic now because Roobit's Wikipedia.en career is over. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 21:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry XMAS

Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus. 12:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

R+R. Moreschi (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

R+R. Moreschi (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have added a comment on your comment that you might like to read. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:06, 7 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)

Damn, I do get around, don't I?  :) --Elonka 01:34, 8 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)

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)

On January 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pelléas et Mélisande (opera), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

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. Ciao --Broletto (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It happened again.--Broletto (talk) 08:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Lydia Caruana

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)

Hmmm! [9] This time it was previously an accurate translation from French WP. Johnbod (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Better yet! [10] Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gondi I'm most familiar with is this inveterate schemer. --Folantin (talk) 10:47, 6 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:

1. http://books.google.com/books?id=tHeoE5iJ1-sC&pg=PR12&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR#PPA22,M1 (page 22)
2. http://books.google.com/books?id=LerKCvsyE6EC&pg=PA61&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR#PPA61,M1 (page 61)
3. 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)

And they are talking nonsense. The key work is The Berbers by Brett and Fentress. The clue is in the title - the entire book is about the Berbers and Michael Brett is a lecturer in North African History at the SOAS. --Folantin (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

1. http://books.google.com/books?id=D3uADrmWEAMC&pg=PA189&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR (pg. 189).
2. http://books.google.com/books?id=RW3KuMNeHQsC&pg=PA155&dq=amazons+amazigh&lr=&hl=pt-BR (pg. 155).
3. 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)

And none of those sources have the specialist credibility of Brett and Fentress. --Folantin (talk) 16:26, 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)

No. The authors have no expertise in the field of Berber Studies. --Folantin (talk) 16:31, 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)

Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:07, 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)

Let's get another opinion from the project. --Folantin (talk) 08:41, 1 April 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)

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)

That's a possibility. I've had that Frost quotation in my user pages for over a year now, only I forgot about it until this debate was mentioned. It has wider relevance than Vilnius/Wilno. --Folantin (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

While we're here, could you discuss the LOC's usage of Vilnius, and Vilnius only, in its index? [15] Do you think they're not scholarly enough? Novickas (talk) 16:40, 8 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)

Suit yourself. I'm not an American. I was using specialist books on the history of NE Europe in the 17th century as my guideline. But somebody ought to inform the LOC that the capital of Kazakhstan has been Astana for the past 10 years. --Folantin (talk) 17:33, 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)

Babylon dictiõnary

Why don´t ou try to translate using any dictionary these two words: pátria and país.

Response from babylon:

1. pátria (f)

n. native country, country; home; fatherland, homeland

1. 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)

Duh. Read Iblardi's explanation above. Then try learning some basic linguistics. --Folantin (talk) 17:14, 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)

No, you have no evidence that Latin patria (modern English derivative "patriot") and pagus/paganus (modern English derivatives "pagan" and, I assume, "peasant") are etymologically related. --Folantin (talk) 17:31, 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)

Sigh.Please don't bother. --Folantin (talk) 17:36, 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)

Pelléas et Mélisande (opera)

...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)

Movses Khorenatsi

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? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 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

[17]

"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:

I to such blockheads set my wit!

I damn such fools!—Go, go, you're bit.--Folantin (talk) 14:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 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)

Now on ANI [18]. Let's see if the place has any value. --Folantin (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran

You're right about the significance of the Arab conquest, but the history sub-sections are (as they should be) categorized based on time periods, not historical events. Regards. --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"Political changes" is so vague it could apply to any era of Iranian history though. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I changed it to the more descriptive "Political changes of the post-Islamic era". Cheers. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Shah Abbas

Have you seen these items [19] [20][21]? There is probably some material there we can pull from, to expand and improve the Shah Abbas page. --Kurdo777 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I'm certainly aware there was a big Shah Abbas exhibition in London last year. On the whole, I'd prefer to use academic sources: Savory, The Cambridge History of Iran, a French bio a friend has lent me. Also, I think one or two new biographies of Abbas have appeared in English in the past month. The whole article needs overhauling. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Folantin, hope you're doing well. I have to say that I disagree with the removal of Persian transliteration from Sassanids or similar pages for the following reasons: 1) The purpose of the transliteration is to facilitate further research on the subject, in the subject's native language. Most of the literature on Sassanians is in modern Persian, not middle Persian or Pahlavi. 2) Furthermore, the spellings of of the names of these dynasties in Latin-based alphabets vary, so the Pero-Arabic alphabet is needed for further research. 3) Modern Persian is a continuation of Middle Persian, based on your argument, modern Turkish language transliterations should be removed from all Ottoman-related pages, because the Ottomans used Ottoman Turkish which uses a different alphabet, and is even classified by some liturgists as a different language from modern Turkish. what do you think? Cheers. --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Compare the Roman Empire infobox. The foreign names are given in Latin and (Ancient) Greek, the official languages of the empire. There is no Italian ("L'imperio romano"), which would be the equivalent of having New Persian in the Sassanid Empire infobox and the first line of the introduction. Likewise, I don't think the point about most literature about the Sassanids being in New Persian is valid because very little modern writing about the Romans is in Latin either. So I think the name of the Sassanid Empire should be in Middle Persian or Pahlavi.

I only removed the names from the main Sassanid article (there are still some there which should go). Generally, we don't put foreign name equivalents in the body of the text when we have blue links to specific articles. Those pages are the right place to list all the different naming variations. Incidentally, I don't have much objection to giving the names of the Sassanid kings in New Persian in their biographies as it might be argued that some of them are famous for their appearance in the Shahnama, for example. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the foreign name equivalents should not be not be used as native titles in the infobox or the body of the article. But a simple Persian transliteration of the title, would not hurt anyone, and could be useful for someone further research as most of the literature on Sassanians is in modern Persian. Your comparison with Roman/Italian is valid, but there is a major difference here, Latin and Greek alphabets are still used and understood by many, but Middle Persian alphabet is not used or understood by many. So alternatively using Perso-Arabic transliteration in the first line, should not be a big issue. For example, look at Ottoman empire, modern Turkish alphabet is used there, despite the fact Ottomans did not use Latin alphabet or modern Turkish language. --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any particular objection to the New Persian name being in the first line, although ideally the Middle Persian name should come first (admission: I doubt if I will be able to add it!). Thanks for removing the superfluous names from the rest of the article. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good job on Shah Abbas

Thanks for a job well done. Could you also take a look at Karim Khan Zand and Lotf Ali Khan. Those two are also very interesting characters deserving of a good article. --Kurdo777 (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I've still got some material to add to the Abbas page and I might create some related articles (Hamza Mirza, Farah-Abad). I don't know as much about the Zands but maybe I'll see what I can find and do something over the next couple of months. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Italian Legion

Though they were certainly from Italy, calling them Italian is a common misnomer, applied post festum. They wouldn't self identify as Italians for another 5 years, except for the minority of the inhabitants of the Apennine Peninsula who had participated in the 1821 and/or 1848-49 insurrections/rebellions/revolutions. The majority of this minority being from Piedmont-Sardinia, (or Sardinia-Piedmont, or Piedmont as it is generally known), Garibaldi being such as this. It was the Carbonari who took the leading role in Italian Nationalism, Garibaldi being a member of the semi-secret organisation. To call them Italians is comparative to calling people who lived in Mercia or Wessex English, or for a more common example, calling 19^th century inhabitants of Liechtenstein German. They were certainly Germanic, but definitely not German. --94.192.227.195 (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion. What Wikipedia is concerned with is reliable, verifiable sources, and there are a number of these which refer to Garibaldi's men as Italian. Thus the article can refer to them as Italian. That's the way Wikipedia works. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Just like there can't be any Kurds because there is no independent Kurdistan. The hundreds of thousands of pre-1859 and pre-1871 sources referring to Italians and Germans are illusions too. Why have you added Basques? Were they an independent nation in the 19th century? Are they an independent nation now? As Doug says, all this talk is irrelevant in any case. Lucy Riall's book on Garibaldi clearly describes the founding of the Italian Legion in Montevideo, which even had its own newspaper called Il Legionario Italiano [22]. --Folantin (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Purcell

Right. If I get the chance (really quite ill) I'll start on the main biography. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I have a score of King Arthur. Just tell me if you want anything from it - list of numbers, scans of any pieces of music, etc. It also has well-respected critic Ebenezer Prout's views on it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but I think we can agree that, ideally, we'd like to do quite a bit here, so an early start can't hurt. I'm afraid I can't help out much sound-wise - the era of free recordings came before the baroque revival - but I'll keep an eye on my sources, and see if anything comes up that might make a good featured picture or similar.

And, of course, will do research. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, watch your dates: The anniversary is in September, not December. If we try for December, we're going to miss it completely. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible Signpost interview

Hi there Folantin. I'm doing an interview about a WikiProject you are involved in - WikiProject Opera - and would like if you could contribute with an interview. If you would be willing to help, please answer the questions set out here. Thanks in advance!  GARDEN  22:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate if you're busy. Is there anything you would like a question focused on? The questions are quite flexible.  GARDEN  19:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the interview is to be publish at the end of Sunday / early Monday UTC, if I remember. I'd rather get it done quite quickly as well. Thanks for your time.  GARDEN  07:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm putting it up for publishing now. Thanks for your help!  GARDEN  19:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In light of your comment at my talk, are you willing for Shoemaker to mention the article in his answer?  GARDEN  09:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing.  GARDEN  09:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hi. Please be aware of this request for arbitration: [23] Unfortunately, I had to take it to the arbitration, as any attempts at dispute resolution were unsuccessful. Grandmaster 06:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

OK. I took that page off my watchlist long ago and I haven't been following the dispute (too busy with trouble elsewhere), but I'll try to provide some evidence regarding content. --Folantin (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I did not name you as a party, as your involvement was marginal. Grandmaster 11:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

H.M.S. Pinafore

I'm still struggling to satisfy peer review comments on H.M.S. Pinafore and hope to bring it to FAC in the next few weeks. If you are able to help satisfy any of Awadewit's comments, your help would be much appreciated! All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look but I'm not too familiar with the details of the subject so I'm unlikely to be of much help. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Berber World

First of all, if an article's neutrality is disputed it does not mean that it should be wiped out.

Second, your concerns about the legitimacy and genuineness of the term "Berber World" are acceptable and even reasonable, given the fact that this term does not appear much in the media or on the English language websites.

I also agree that this article should be better referenced than it is. So there is some work to do.

But the fact is that the term "Berber world" is not my invention. It was used by French and English geographers and historians since 1866! (see the provided Google Books links in the article). This term appeared in many dozens of English and French publications in the 20th century. So I think and believe that it is genuine enough.

It is a fact that Berbers don't really consider "race" and "language" as the core of their identity. Homeland is more central in this regard. A small example here: Berber tribes (across the Berber World) are almost never named after a great great great father (unlike the Arab tribes for example, where bloodlines are almost holy). Guess what were Berber tribes usually named after! .. A geographic site (oasis, plain, mountain, fountain..etc)!! and then the members of the tribe would be called "sons of oasis x" or "sons of mountain y" ...etc.

This tells us that race or bloodlines were never really central in the Berber identity and culture. This priciple (homeland first and not race or language) was only embraced in modern times by modern democracies or societies (for example the US).

Thus I don't deny that a part of the Algerians or Moroccans or Libyans descend from Iraq or Israel or something else. I only say this doesn't make them Arabs or Jews now (after all these centuries since they migrated)

There is a lot of valuable literature on this "Berber identity approach" but not in English, I will try to reference to some. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazigh Man (talk • contribs) 10:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It was wiped out because it was a content fork of the Berber people page. There was no justification for a separate article.

Defining Berber identity is often extremely difficult, but to say language doesn't come into it is completely false. The easiest way of identifying a Berber is if they speak Berber as their mother tongue. Deciding that everybody in North-West Africa is somehow a Berber is just ridiculous. --Folantin (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

If you are still interesting in Chechen subjects, there is a discussion. If you have some time, could you also look at recent changes in Second_Chechen_War and perhaps make some corrections? Thanks, Biophys (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I may have a look later. To be honest, my involvement with Chechen subjects has always been marginal and I'm not sure I'd want to enter yet another battleground. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR

you exceeded your 3RR stop deleting page Cyrus111 (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, so you can't count either? Oh well. --Folantin (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

|Hotakis and Afghan pages

Can you please explain what makes Hotakis a dynasty? And can you please the longstanding concerns in the Afghan-ralated articles?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What? The dynasty was founded by Mir Wais Hotak and there were two Hotaki shahs of Iran (or a good deal of Iran). How is that not a dynasty? --Folantin (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Folantin I had respected you as a historian. i do not know what to answer about this. Mir Wais Khan Hotak rebbeled against the Georgian Iranian governor of Kandahar Gurgin Khan for personal afairs. (Gorgin Khan wanted to marry his daughter and he sent a maiden. Something of that level!). And he was never shah of iran. Mahmud has attacked Iran and murdered a lot and he became insane and his cousin Ashraf, who was his gang member killed him and followed him, untill he was defeated by Nader Shah. When he was felling to Afghanistan, he was killed by Pashtuns or Baluchis, in order of other Afghans who saw him having brought shame to Afghans and has lost to Shiite Iranians. Just two bloodthirsty criminals does not make them a dynasty.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How does being bloodthirsty stop them being a dynasty? If we introduced that criterion, few royal families would be eligible. When did I say Mir Wais was Shah of Iran? I said he founded the dynasty, i.e. he established independent power for the family in part of Afghanistan that had been ruled by Iran. Two of his successors, no matter how murderous or insane, did succeed in making themselves Shahs of Iran, however briefly. --Folantin (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No it is wrong. Mirwais was never Shah of anywere. Mahmud invaded Persia and Ashraf was not Mirwais's son. Only two individuals do not make a dynasty--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't you read? I know. They were from the Hotaki family, that's what makes them the Hotaki dynasty. "Only two individuals do not make a dynasty?" So that rules out the Pahlavis then. --Folantin (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Pahlevi's succeeded each other. In the Case of Hotakis it was not like that. Moreover Pahlavis ruled over their own native country, Hotakis were invaders. But you can remove "dynasty"from Pahlavis if you want. My point is that Hotakis did ot have any legitimacy in Iran the same as Safavids, Afhsraids, Qajars etc... had. Not for nothing Nader at first appointed a Safavid prince as the king after he defeted the Pashtuns. Seemingly he still regarded the Safavid as the legiimate rulers of iran after foreign invasion.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just like William the Conqueror didn't have any legitimacy in England. --Folantin (talk) 17:

Tell me if you consider Hitler as a successor of Masaryk in Czecholsvakia?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Shah Abbas's Grandmother

Why do you delete my source? You wanted a source and I offered you. now in doing this you act very Eurocentric. Why is this Anglo-Saxon scholar who misinterprtes primary sources, and I doubt about his knowledge of p[ersian or Georgian, is preferred about Koridze in whose book many primary georgian sources of the time is presented?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? It's "Eurocentric" to think that Shah Abbas' mother was Iranian and his grandmother was Turcoman? --Folantin (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Its Eurocentric to prefer Newman over Koridze. As I said it is doubtfull how well Newman can read Persian and Georgian, but Koridze reprsents in his book many original sources and can read and write in georgian and I guess also in persian too.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Bodishi, ar vlap'arak'ob kartulad and neither do 99.9% of our readers. There's a good reason we have WP:VUE. You know nothing about Newman's abilities whatsoever. You just want to make the most famous Shah of Iran into an Iranian Georgian like yourself and if that means having to resort to a Georgian-language publication from the 1970s, so be it. --Folantin (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you say, sorry I do not speak georgian? That is not a requirement anyway. And Koridze is better than newman. The fact that newman is an arrogant Anglosaxon does not make him any better than Koridze. many of these Anglo-saxon historians make gross mistakes. I doubt that these orientalists even can read and understand Persian. The one who is certainly respectable is Freye. I am not a fan of most of them , the same way you are not of georgian historians.But still Koridze has studied the primary sources. And what is this stuff about my ethnic background? See the Afghan-related or republic oif Azerbaijan-related, Armenia-related if you are concerned about ethnic chauvinist. You only selectively dispute Iranian history and particualrly the contributions of theIranian Georgian ethnic group to this history.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Newman is an arrogant Anglosaxon". You know that, do you? "You only selectively dispute Iranian history and particualrly the contributions of theIranian Georgian ethnic group to this history." Nope, I read reliable sources and report on what I find. Shah Abbas had a half-Georgian aunt, a Georgian wife and a half-Georgian successor. He did not have a Georgian mother or grandmother. He killed a Georgian queen, Ketevan. --Folantin (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Allen, "In 1548, Shah Tahmasp I married a daughter of Otar Shalikashvili..",(1) page 152, A History of the Georgian People. Also, it states, "The special favourite of the passe' paladin in his later years, Shalikashvili's daughter borne a son to Tahmasp."(2)Therefore, any son would have been born 1548 or later.

• (1).Wakhushti, Hist. de Samtzkhe, in Brosset. H. de la G., II, i, 217.
• (2).Wakhushti, Hist. de Kartli, in Brosset, H. de la G., II, i, 37.--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Per Roger Savory (the big expert on the Safavids), seven of Tahmasp's sons were by Georgians or Circassians, two by a Turcoman. Those two were Ismail II and Mohammed Khodabanda. This is confirmed by Newman (writing five years ago or less). Mohammed Khodabanda was born in 1532, Ismail in 1537. So they couldn't have been sons of that Georgian princess. --Folantin (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Babakexorramdin, what is the matter with you? Please don't drag this silly dispute to the other Safavid pages. If the mother or father of one of Shah Abbas' parents was a Georgian or Turkoman or whatever, this issue should be raised and covered in the Mohammed Khodabanda or Khayr al-Nisa Begum page, not on Shah Abbas's page. I am getting sick and tired of these silly edit-wars. --Kurdo777 (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious what the matter is with this guy. He wants to add Shah Abbas the Great (one of the most prestigious rulers in the history of Iran) to the category "Iranian Georgians". That's it.--Folantin (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Then he's going to be upset.[24] --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It fits with the information I added about the faction-fighting between Tahmasp's Turcoman, Georgian and Circassian sons to the Tahmasp I article over a month ago: "The shah's Georgian and Circassian wives had also introduced a new faction into the court. Seven of Tahmasp's surviving sons were by Georgian or Circassian mothers and two by a Turcoman.[11] Of the latter, Mohammed Khodabanda was regarded as unfit to rule because he was almost blind, and his younger brother, Ismail, had been imprisoned by Tahmasp since 1555. Nevertheless, one court faction supported Ismail, while another backed Haydar Mirza, the son of a Georgian. Tahmasp himself was believed to favour Haydar but he prevented his supporters from killing Ismail.[12]

"Tahmasp died as a result of poison, although it is unclear whether this was by accident or on purpose. On his death, as expected, fighting broke out between the different court factions. Haydar was killed and Ismail emerged triumphant as Shah Ismail II.[13]" --Folantin (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not my aiam to add Shah Abbas as an Iranian Georgian if he was not one. It is the fact that he had Georgian roots so it is better to be mentioned. Why I do not try to make Nader Shah an Iranian Georgian? Or Cyrus the Great? Your argument is funny.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't a fact that Abbas had Georgian roots as Kansas Bear and I have proved at great length. Now pack it in. --Folantin (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

you always react hostile whenever someone opposes your POV. see what i wroote on kansas bear's webpage. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I react "hostile" to clueless POV-pushers like you who drive decent editors away with their relentless tendentiousness and ignorance. As far as I can see, you contribute nothing to this encyclopaedia except pointless time-wasting. Now get off my talk page. --Folantin (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem editor

Mullaji (talk · contribs). He unilaterally moved Turkmen rug (the common name in English) to Afghan rug, while removing an entire section on the Bukhara variety of the rug. His edits elsewhere are also problematic, with a strong POV overtone(Pashtun nationalism ). --Kurdo777 (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds better. And please never ever again call me silly!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Folantin , He turned out to be a banned user. All his edits should be mass-reverted per WP:Ban#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits, your help would be appropriated. --Kurdo777 (talk) 08:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do later today. --Folantin (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like all his dubious edits have been reverted (not that I know much about Afghanistan after the mid-1700s). --Folantin (talk) 11:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Aesop

That was perfect; thank you for posting it. Woonpton (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Just look at some of the editors coming out of the woodwork to defend this ridiculous decision. There's a certain wolfish aspect about them. --Folantin (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at that for the first time. You appear to be spot on -- what a perfect pick from Aesop. I think we should be rewarding those people brave enough to take on the nationalist nuts, not desysopping them, but then every time I look in one of our drama zones I come away with a strong feeling of disgust.

Kafka was right -- "every revolution eventually evaporates, leaving behind the slime of a new bureaucracy." Remember when Wikipedia was revolutionary? Yeah, I do too. Antandrus (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is the danger now we've got to the stage when the project is so large it's possible to have a "career" here without editing articles much (or even ever). The natural politicians, bureaucrats, managerial types come out of the woodwork and start taking over the show, demonstrating their skills at "people management". Making sure everybody is calm and civil and doesn't rock the boat is the priority, regardless of the effect on the accuracy of our articles. If Future Perfect has to be thrown to the wolves to maintain this status quo, then so be it. I look at places like ANI and I rarely see any disputes relating to content or real world arguments, just a load of quarrelling over the colour of the bikeshed or personal feuds which rarely rise beyond the importance of "User X has been squeezing the toothpaste from the middle of the tube again". Admins will scurry to take part in these petty bust-ups but will leave anything remotely controversial well alone - and who can blame them given the amount of support they're likely to get? The jingoists are the big winners. I mean, just a few days ago there was this [25]. There you have a well-meaning editor who has obviously taken a battering in his dealings with the POV-pushers. But if you can't write that The 1001 Nights is often (more usually, I imagine) called The Arabian Nights in English just because some editors despise Arabs then we're finished as an encyclopaedia. That kind of compromise means saying 2+2=4.5. --Folantin (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Izzedine

He believes anyone who lived in Mesopotamia from Gudea to Ibn al-Nafis were "Iraqis". I reverted a bunch of his edits, and raised the issue at User_talk:Dbachmann#User:Izzedine, but another set of eyes would be appreciated. --Kurdo777 (talk) 03:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think some admins are on to this. --Folantin (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Moses of Chorene

Hi. This article has now been unprotected, so if you are interested in editing, you can join. Regards, Grandmaster 10:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My enthusiasm for editing highly contentious topics on Wikipedia has somewhat abated given recent developments, so I think I'll give this one a miss for the time being. Sorry. --Folantin (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand. No problem. I'm mostly interested in the opinions, rather than actual editing, since I want the article to be based on the consensus, formed at talk. Take care. Grandmaster 10:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

List of important operas

Hi! I know it's been over two years, but since I only recently found the article, I just wanted to say that you did an awesome job with List of important operas. Keep up the good work! Jafeluv (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Moreschi and GuillaumeTell also made massive contributions there. The "sister list" is List of major opera composers (using the same method). --Folantin (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

HI

Since you and I have interacted a lot, and you have seen my style and substance, could you please make a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#CU. I am essentially paying the price for enforcing policy and going after User:NisarKand's sock puppet who filed a frivolous CU against me and a bunch of other editors, clearly fishing, with apparent success. Grandmaster is also fishing in muddy waters only because I made this comment earlier. [26]. --Kurdo777 (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know you that well. I can say you have been very reasonable in the interactions I have had with you on Iranian topics. But the rules are the rules on alternative accounts, so I just hope you haven't been doing anything silly. --Folantin (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Debate ?

And this is what you would call an example for a debate that will lead to an improvement in an article ?[27].--Ezzex (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not responsible for every talk page on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker

I saw your message about the loss of long-time editors. In my experience, they usually come back. I'm certain Shoe will be back. Remember, he went away (when he had a different user name) and came back before. Also, I am sure that he loves having his work up on Wikipedia. Give him a few weeks to calm down. Hope you're doing well! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he'll probably be back. I'm doing OK, thanks. Just a little irritated by some aspects of Wikipedia as ever. I think Shoemaker ended up the same way. Eventually the POV-pushers, the bureaucrats, the Wiki-lawyers and the Wiki-politicians will take over this place, but in the mean time I think I'll edit some music articles. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Page blanker

Thanks. Blocked for 24 hours. Dougweller (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Current Opera Project discussions

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

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

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

Macedonia request for comment

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look when I get the chance. --Folantin (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. You seem to have missed out Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia/main articles - I was wondering if you'd overlooked it? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I've missed out two ;). I just got caught up in other things. I'm trying to do this properly and give those pages my full attention before voting. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no worries. :-) Thanks for taking the time to contribute. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Died before age 60

You can't think of any musicians who died before age 60 in, say, the 17th century, can you? LOL. You know, all those Thirty Yearz War rappers. Antandrus (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention non-Western musicians...We should really follow Arnold Schoenberg and use musicians who made it past 76 (7+6=13) as our criterion. --Folantin (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Off topic thanks

...for alerting an American lady to the existence of Jam. I haven't laughed so hard in a while. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That sketch is an uncannily accurate rendering of virtually every argument on Wikipedia nowadays, especially the bit at the end where he loses for being "uncivil". --Folantin (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

Ok. Now that I know your purpose here (hint: it doesn't include reading comments of others), I'll try working with others. Thanks for the clarification. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice one, Sherlock. You're hardly in a position to complain about people not reading your comments when you've blithely ignored almost half a dozen users pointing out to you the distinction between the adjectives "Arab" and "Islamic". I've yet to work out what your purpose is editing the Islamic Republic article since you seem to know absolutely nothing about the subject whatsoever. --Folantin (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the differences between "Islamic" and "Arabic". I'm not sure the few who participated are aware of the "gov. structure and history" concepts of the two which have many correlations. I'd suggest a few interesting books like this one.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

New? editor

See [28] and his comment on my talk page. Should we be concerned at all? Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yeah. Compare and contrast. I'll ask Nish64 if this is another sock on the farm. --Folantin (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock. --Folantin (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Purcell

Still interested? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe. I'm not happy with any of Wikipedia's "official" processes at the moment as they've been overrun by bureaucrats so I'm not sure how I feel about FA. But I'm still planning to expand some Purcell articles. Just waiting for the books. --Folantin (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check

Is this true? Is it offensive to classify Mendelssohn as a "Jew" in European countries, including the UK, but not in the US and Russia? I've never heard of such a thing. As far as I know, and I've read, general histories of music have it as "he was a Jew who converted to Christianity" -- and indeed our article has him in both categories, as it seems it should be (as well as his sister Fanny, of course). I'm tired of arguing with this persistent pest who keeps coming back to the article again and again, with one purpose only -- to edit-war over ethnicity/religion. At least he hasn't called me a "Nazi" yet (he did in January). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

E-mail. Short answer: no it's not offensive to characterise M. as a Jew in the UK. --Folantin (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Amateur etymology

You beat me my a milli-second to reverting "opere". Amateur etymology is the scourge of Wikipedia. I just reverted this little beauty:[29]. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I just removed some amateur IPA pronunciation guides too. --Folantin (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Swedish literature

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed at Talk:Swedish literature/GA1. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

hi

greetings from your vandal meatpuppet. I see you are keeping an 'enemy list' on behalf of Ottava Rima's. You still get to be at the top, don't worry, but I think I should be on it, seeing that he has figured out that I was secretly helping you in your disgraceful Ottoman Persia denialism. --dab (𒁳) 22:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll review your application but I'm afraid you weren't part of the mighty cabal of three (Dougweller, Akhilleus and me) who brought down what would have otherwise been a successful bid for adminship [30][[31]. --Folantin (talk) 08:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Berber people

You might want to keep an eye on this. Um, somehow I think even if we'd not been around, Ottava wouldn't have become an Admin. :-) Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been off my watchlist for some time because it's one of those nightmare articles that would take a hell of a lot of work to fix and I just don't have the time or the patience. But I'll try to keep an eye on this latest crank. (The OR brouhaha is at Persian Empire BTW). --Folantin (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

[32] Ottava Rima (talk) 16:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Reason for this below --Folantin (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC):

Evidence of Ottava Rima's grudge against me

Ottava Rima's failed RFA April 2009

Beginning of the RFA

From Ottava Rima's nomination statement, April 1, 2009: "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." [33]

The End of the RFA

But just minutes before the RFA is due to close on April 9 (when it is now obvious he will not be promoted) Ottava changes his mind and launches a series of accusations against his opponents. The idea is they will have little or no time to respond before closure - indeed, many will be asleep. (Only Rjanag manages to get a few challenges in):

• Accusations against two opposers for being "members of Wikipedia Review [34]
• Accusation against me (see "Cabal" below) [35]
• Accusation against Gatoclass [36]
• Accusations against Dougweller and Akhilleus (see "Cabal" below): [37]
• Accusation against GlassCobra: [38]
• Accusation against Evula: [39]
• Accusation against Roux: [40]
• Accusation against JoshuaZ ("this user has carried a grudge far too long"): [41]
• Accusation against Rjanag [42]
• Accusations against Everyking, Frank and LessHeard vanU: [43]
• Accusations against David Shankbone and Chillum: [44]
• Four minutes later the RFA is closed [45]

Unfortunately for Ottava, the decision to leave his accusations on the closed page is overturned [46] by Bureaucrat Dan with the following comment: "I dislike the idea of squeezing in as many nasty remarks as possible at the last moment so that they will be preserved in indelible ink by the "closed" tags."

The accusations against me and my "cabal" in full

• Against me (NB he still can't get my gender right): The above user has followed me through multiple forums, constantly berates, attacks, and provides little to the actual encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Against Dougweller: The above user edits frequently with User:Folantin and supports her in countless forums in a manner that goes beyond coincidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
• Against Akhilleus: The above user edits frequently with User:Folantin and supports her in countless forums in a manner that goes beyond coincidence. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Ottava's thoughts about me (and others): June 2009

From Jennavecia's talk page - end of June 2009

There are only four people at Wiki that I could say I hate (or even dislike). You are definitely not one, even though you can be a total jerk sometimes. That isn't a personal attack, because it describes your actions. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think with a little ingenuity you can figure out a pattern that involves four specific individuals that may have done something enough to bother me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Is that recently, or ever? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC) The last one came into my life approximately 20 June 2008 at 15:53 Wikitime. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Well, if block logs display in set timezones, considering mine is UTC -4, I would guess:

11:53, June 20, 2008 Moreschi (talk | contribs | block) blocked Ottava Rima (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Persistent tendentious editing: will unblock when this editor actually acknowledges he's doing something wong) (unblock | change block) Amirite? لennavecia 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, lets just say that if you match up the people in the Moreschi cabal and look at my RfA, you can see a strong mutual dislike. :) Folantin still causes problems over at Ludovico Ariosto. It is impossible to ever fix that page as she has made it clear that, well, she just doesn't care. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Persian Version": August 2009

AFAIK I have avoided Ottava Rima since April. Getting involved in any kind of discussion with him is fruitless (as many people have learned to their cost [47]). Unfortunately, I unwittingly made an edit referring to Persia on a page (18th century) which happens to be on Ottava Rima's watchlist and he followed me to Persian Empire.

His very first comments on the talk page were an attack on me as "only here to cause disruption" and a call for me to be blocked: "However, that is what happens when you have such people that are here only to cause disruptions. A block should probably allow for people who actually care about Wikipedia to put a page in place."

This guy is only there to pursue a personal grudge against me and doesn't care about violating WP:POINT to do so. There is no evidence he even knows or cares about the topic of the page (many of the absurdities in his statements have already been pointed out).

For some reason admins have given Ottava Rima carte blanche to behave in whatever way he likes, so once again nothing more has been done (witness the latest ANI discussion).--Folantin (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

On a completely different subject...

You have mail. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Answered. --Folantin (talk) 11:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Sorry bout that, i clicked the wrong page to roll back. –BuickCenturyDriver 09:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. No worries. --Folantin (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to undo the rollback but you beat me to it :) Take care. –BuickCenturyDriver 09:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#RS and Fringe Noticeboard and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

I am? Thanks from whom?--Folantin (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I love it. I poke my nose round the door, and by complete coincidence one of our oldest, dearest friends is up at RFAR causing drama. One of my failures, I think.

Ah, well. How's it been going? What have I missed? Life's settled down more now and I should be around fairly regularly. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Great to see you back. I've been trying to live a reasonably quiet life, editing Debussy and Iranian history articles. Obviously, I can't be allowed to do the latter in peace, can I? After all, this is Wikipedia. But, just for a change, it isn't some chauvinist POV-pushers who are causing a stink but Ottava Rima who turned up on Talk:Persian Empire out of the blue and turned a reasonable conversation into a month-long drama. Apparently, he's suddenly developed a passion for the Persians. You can see he has a deep understanding of the subject from some gems I've been collecting from among his statements here. If you know anything about Iranian history, you should enjoy it. Selected highlights: ""The 'Persian Empire' refers to a series of dynasties between 600 AD until the Ottoman Conquest. No more, no less"; ""The Persian Empire is not anything pre 600 AD. How can you not understand that?"; ""Furthermore, as I stated above, the Persian Empire was the 30 or so dynasties between 600 AD and 1800 AD. Mentioning the Sassanids at all shows that you don't understand what you are talking about."; plus his claim that the Mughal Empire was the Persian Empire. The Sword-skeleton theory at its finest.

I think it's really all about his failed RFA back in April. Back then, the cabal which destroyed his chances allegedly consisted of Akhilleus, Dougweller and me (i.e. three votes out of 120 or so opposes). Fuller details of the "controversial" aftermath on my talk page here [48]. You will be particularly interested in this user talk page conversation from June [49] (scroll down to the section marked "BLP") in which Ottie expresses his undying love for you.

Elsewhere, nothing new: usual ethnic fighting, fringe lunacy, Giano wars, ANI functioning just as uselessly as ever. Oh, and just last week Fred Bauder decided to unblock Ararat Arev unilaterally. Fortunately, Future Perfect was resysopped just in time to put a bullet in that idea. Is your e-mail still enabled? Update Oh, I see from your user page you have a new address. The last message I sent you must have been back in February or March and I got no reply. That explains things. I'll e-mail you later today so you can be clued into the cabal to destroy the 'Pedia. --Folantin (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I assumed you were pulling my tail over Ararat arev, can't believe he actually did that. Just out of the blue too...cringe. What next, Jacob Peters passes RFA (ok, maybe that wouldn't be so surprising).

Oh, Ottava, Ottava. If this guy worked in an office, he'd be writing memos to the Board of Directors complaining about the excessively high temperature of the water cooler, and how everyone else was conspiring in a cabal to keep the temperature too high, and how they should be banned from ever having any authority over the water cooler, ever. It would be funny if it weren't so exasperating.

Anyway, back to writing up Handelian singers, and the usual ethnic fights. I just put Andranikpasha after 1RR: it wasn't a pleasant sight to return and find he was back to playing wingman for Ararat arev. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just sent that e-mail (to your new address). --Folantin (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC Revert

Sorry I removed your comment in a revert - another EC failure, and it looked like it worked. Verbal chat 11:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. The entire page should be removed ASAP anyway. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Something interesting

You might enjoy this. Has a couple of references to our mutual friend. Antandrus (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's good. I was looking for that. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator intervention requested

Please note that I have raised the issue of Arad, Nepaheshgar and Xashaiar's disruptive editing at WP:AN/I#Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles. As an involved party, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Monteverdi

Hi, I wondered how your Monteverdi work was progressing. In researching L'incoronazione, I have unearthed good material relating to Ulisse, which you might be interested in if this is still a project. Meantime any comment on the burgeoning L'incoronazione will be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I've revised L'Arianna and created an article on the quasi-operatic Il ballo delle ingrate. I'm also developing a complete works list for Monteverdi. I've had a look at some sources on Il ritorno (and created a stub on its librettist Giacomo Badoaro), but I haven't got very far so if you want to revise the article on the opera then go ahead. I can always concentrate on L'Orfeo and some other things I have in mind (pages on the individual books of madrigals). I'll have a look at your work on Poppea when I get the chance later. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I may well work on Ulisse later, but there's a way to go yet on Poppea. No hurry, take a look when you can. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To Folantin

Hello there. I am new to wikipedia "accounts" and have just signed up. Im not sure if this is how one posts a message but I will make an attempt. I was directed into this account based system which I never really noticed on Wikipedia before, by your message to me regarding my edit attempts on the Nader Shah e Afshar page.

To clarify my position; I do not recall having deleted anything from the original page content whatsoever. I did however simply add a few sentences regarding Nader Shah and even typed up the 'brief summary of changes' in the so labled text box which I believe rests right above(or was it below?) the Save Page button. However, even with that, the additions were simply deleted each time without any reason or explanation.

Thats with regards to the information content. The only thing I deleted was a tag at the bottom from Turkic ruler to Iranian ruler which is with clearly good reason.

Regarding the Slavery in Iran page, I intended highlight some important parts using the bold text option. Even though there was quite a few polically motivated, factually incorrect parts; I planned their correction for a later date when I would have the time to gather a listing of sources. The said deletions if true may have been accidental in which case, I apologise and Im not certain if someone used my computer which I often leave on, and that page was always up in a browser tab.

I also added to the initial definition passage of the page for the word Sahib, but no one seems to have had issues with that one at least.

I also do not appreciate being called a POV Pusher, especially when I simply made additions to Nader Shah's profile and gave a summary exp. of the addition/its source, only to have it constantly deleted without any counter reason being givan in a message or otherwise. Am I to understand that only a handful are allowed to make edits and everyone else isnt?

regards,

M

p.s. I had a quick read through some of your talkpage about someone called Ottava [sp?]. I may have misunderstood when you wrote he cant read Persian/Farsi, but if you need help on some translation, I can read Farsi. Arabic too. So let me know. Also alot of his assertions regarding Persia/Iran, are ludicrous. i.e. Persia not having been referred to as Iran by its inhabitants pre 1930's.

Molavi (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

IF, you are the Anon IP[50], that has belligerently removed these references, Michael Axworthy's biography of Nader, The Sword of Persia (I.B. Tauris, 2006), p.17-19, Stephen Erdely and Valentin A. Riasanovski. The Uralic and Altaic Series, Routledge, 1997, ISBN 0700703802, p. 102, then take my advice and use the talk page, else you will find that the removal of references AND referenced information will result in a block or ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Removing references from up-to-date reliable sources in English is not on - and altering direct quotations is especially bad. The new additions seem nothing more than patriotic propaganda. We're not here to project modern ethnic conflicts onto the 18th century. --Folantin (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If you KB, read what I wrote above, you would know that I did NOT remove ANY refrences. I am also not aware what my IP is but if the said IP did infact remove sources/references, then it would stand to reason that it wasn't mine.

And Folantin, you have simply repeated the criterion KB's ultimatum which in turn is a repeat of your original message to me. I would appreciate the courtesy of proper dialogue and not being treated as an imbecile. Suffice to say I have shown my ability to read, comprehend and write English without the need for the ban ultimatum and the qualifying criterion for it posted to me twice in repetion. Got it. Its a no-no. So I ask, are people not allowed to edit unless they are in the inner sanctum?

You claim that my add ons "Seem" nothing more than patrotic propaganda. "Seem" to whom? Who decides and on what grounds? Is all information that has any positive reference to a nation or its arts or achievements (like mentioning that a cruel Shah strangely enough was fond of Persian poetry) automatically Patriotic propaganda? Why is a tour by educated members of the Ministry of Culture, who have devoted to studying N.Shah responsible for the historical documenting, artifacts and the tomb of Nader Shah, not a reliable source? Is it political, because of the IRI's standing to westerners? The MOC of the current Iranian govt. which actually is not fond of its Shahs, even those from centuries past; would not care to attribute any major positive qualities or statements to Shahs if they can avoid it, let alone going out of their way to attribute fake made up qualities or statements for any Shah which would endear them to its people. But it did here, because its the truth one can only assume. Its surely not beyond the realm of reason that an agressive militarily expansionist Shah did believe Iran should be a major power. Nor is the likelyhood that he enjoyed Persian poetry like many Shahs did and majority of modern Iranians do. If you wish to ban me for speaking my mind regarding your judgement on my earlier addition, be my guest. Molavi (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag Conduct RfC

A Request for Comments has been opened concerning the conduct of Rjanag. This follows the suggestion of a number of arbitrators at the Rjanag RfA. I am contacting you because you previously joined the discussion at the Alefbe AN/I.

The RfC can be found here.

Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by:

(a) posting their own view; and/or

(b) endorsing one or more views of others.

You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties.

Information on the RfC process can be found at:

1. RfC Conduct
2. RfC Guide
3. RfC Guide 2
4. RfC Rules

Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For [51]. I think your remarks are spot-on. I just prefer to keep the discussion in one place, particularly as Ottava is so given to comments of the "well, I spoke to someone somewhere else, and they said..." type.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had to cut down on my evidence just to keep things in focus. I could have posted a lot more but, in this particular arbitration case, this would probably have led to lots more fruitless, tangential arguments and there are only so many hours in a day. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

To keep it all in perspective, it all reminds me more of this than anything else. Antandrus (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You aren't the first to come up with that comparison. --Folantin (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not wrong there. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Aristo-cruft

[52] Very true, even for people with no verifiable claim to notability such as Maria Huber née Prinzessin von Hohenzollern. [53] It's astonishing that we have a separate guideline WP:PEERAGE, but nothing specific about the naming of authors. If the latter existed it would almost certainly contradict the former in these cases. A reasonable interpretation of WP:PEERAGE is of course that it applies only when nobility is directly related to the subject's primary claim to notability.

(I am responding here because I made a resolution not to continue these off-topic discussions on the evidence talk page.)Hans Adler 12:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no plans to continue that dispute either. My favourite bit of aristo-cruft naming used to be María del Pilar Teresa Cayetana de Silva y Álvarez de Toledo, 13th Duchess of Alba (Goya's fancy woman). Sadly, it's since been moved to a less prolix title (to which it is now redirected). Likewise, the page on John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg had a detailed list of his children and their marriages but no mention of his conversion to Calvinism, one of the most significant moves in the history of Prussia (I'm not really an expert on the subject but I felt someone had to add that). --Folantin (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh, this is surprisingly easy to explain (I had an introspective brainstorm on the subject a few years back.) It's just a manifestation of the same phenomenon that gives us an article for every bus stop in major cities, and forces us to remind people that Wikipedia is not a game of Nomic: geeks like rules. The aristocracy supplies a rather baroque ruleset and a large and extensively documented body of data to iterate the rules over. Hence the existence of Line of succession to the British throne: it didn't get there because fanatical monarchists have infiltrated Wikipedia and want to know who to proclaim as Queen of Canada should Europe suddenly disappear, but because Wikipedia is loaded with people (like, er, me) who don't know when to stop. Choess (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very insightful. Hans Adler 08:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Basta!

I don't think that conversation is productive at this point. Mind being the one to stop the volley? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I've made my point [54]. It was only a small matter but it seems to sum up the problem with Ottava. His attacks on Akhilleus are quite outrageous, by the way. For one thing, I've never contacted Akhilleus off-wiki at all. But Akhilleus voted against Ottava at his RFA so...--Folantin (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's really starting to look like taunting at this point, and I don't think there's any need to push it any further over the edge than it's gone already. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

He should stop taunting Akhilleus then. It seems Ottava expects everybody to treat him with kid gloves while he swings left, right and centre with his boxing gloves. I see little chance of his changing his behaviour, given his tendency to turn on those who offer him friendly advice. He's even had a go at Sandy. Whatever the case, I am bored with this guy and his harassment of me and others. I hope this RFAR will finally do something to put a stop to his ridiculous shenanigans. --Folantin (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm utterly astonished at how much good, kind, and sensible advice he's been given, in spite of everything. (I've tried myself, maybe six or seven separate times, including by e-mail. My comments only seem to have made it all worse.)

I think Akhilleus would be more likely to get an apology out of Agamemnon for stealing Briseis. Of course then we'd have to go down to Hell to hear it ... oh wait. Maybe that's where we are. Antandrus (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, there's fat chance and no chance of Ottava offering an apology for his random smears. WikiProject:Georgia anyone? --Folantin (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's backed himself into a tight corner to be sure. Of course, it's much harder for the guy in the corner to cool down than it is for the guys not in the corner ;-). I suspect everything that belongs on the table is pretty much out there now, so there's no harm in just leaving things quiet for a few days while he prepares for his discussions with the arbs. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not planning to add anything else there if I can help it. --Folantin (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Autoreviewer

Hi, after reading one of your articles at newpage patrol I was surprised to see that an editor whose been here since 2006 and who has contributed as much as you have hadn't been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've created 300+ articles so I assume I can be trusted by now ;). --Folantin (talk) 12:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm sure if you'd gone to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer yourself you'd have been made an autoreviewer long ago. I've recently started checking out author's I come across at newpage patrol, using one of Soxred's tools which lists the last 100 articles they've created, then running an eye over their deleted contibutions and talkpage history. I suspect we have quite a few editors like yourself who are quietly building the pedia, and it makes sense to mark your articles as prepatrolled just in case someone gets overenthusiastic at newpage patrol. Also I have a sneaky fealing that flagged revisions will wind up treating all editors with Autreviewer as "trusted" and therefore the more old hands we can set as autoreviewer the more likely it is that flagged revisions will work. ϢereSpielChequers 13:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was vaguely aware of "Autoreviewer" and was tempted to ask for it but I never got round to it. Thanks again. --Folantin (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

Here's to hoping you had a fun Christmas! I know I'm going to be eating turkey for at least the next week, and the taste of it won't be out of my mouth until February :)

Anyway, I've had a few thoughts about the Purcell structure. I remember we discussed doing separate articles for the sacred music, incidental/theatrical music, opera/semi-opera music, instrumental music, odes, etc. This will work well, but d'you reckon we should have a summary article for them? I reckon that if we use Henry Purcell as the parent for all that lot it will simply become unreadable through bloat, and that we'd be better off using Henry Purcell as the parent for a spin-off child, called something like Music of Henry Purcell, which can be the parent to all the others.

Let me know what you think. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a good Christmas. I haven't really got back into "Wikipedia mode" and am unlikley to do so for a couple of weeks, but in my opinion we should do the sub-articles first then summarise them in the main one. I doubt Henry Purcell will get bloated. Let's face it, so little is known about his biography, it makes no sense to have a separate life and works. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. We'll take it as it comes. You have email shortly as well. Moreschi (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Message to all members of WikiProject Opera

Please see our project's talk page for a discussion of the possible changes to Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons and the implications this will have for many articles under the project's banner. This is especially important if you are looking after or have created unreferenced or minimally referenced opera-related biographies of living people. Voceditenore (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have that much time to devote to Wikipedia at the moment but I've had a look. I've had very little to do with BLP articles in any case. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Il ritorno d'Ulisse in patria

Just to let you know: I will be starting work on this in about a week, and hope to have something substantial to show by mid to end February. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I look forward to it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

St. Bartholomew's Day massacre

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Groupthink (talk) 15:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(a) Don't template the regulars; (b) read WP:NPOV and WP:RS, because citing the opinion of a British politician from some obscure article does not represent the balance of scholarly opinion on this subject. --Folantin (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(a) Template the regulars; (b) As a regular, you should know better; (c) I have posted this notice. Groupthink (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't actually violated 3RR any more than you have. --Folantin (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I made an addition, you reverted it. I reverted the revert, you re-reverted it. I added material addressing your citation concerns, you reverted it. By my count, the score is 3-1 against you. Groupthink (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The three-revert rule means you shouldn't make more than three reverts in one 24-hour period. I have not stepped over the line. I generally avoid going anywhere near this limit but since you were so bent on violating neutrality and encyclopaedicity, I made an exception. --Folantin (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

3RR is also a bright-line rule, and it's pretty clear from your behavior that you're engaging in counter-productive obstructionist tactics rather than trying to negotiate consensus. Given that a second revert on my part would almost assuredly lead to a fourth revert on yours, I'm going to let an admin deal with this. Groupthink (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be engaging in strong-arm tactics to get your way. I notice you haven't replied to my objections on the grounds of neutrality and reliable sourcing. --Folantin (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong-arm tactics? I made a productive contribution to an article, and you stonewalled me. I will be happy to address your objections once you stop exerting ownership over this article. Self-revert your last edit, and I'll be happy to remove the admin board notice and have a civilized discussion on the talk page. Groupthink (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't make a "productive contribution" to the article. You simply added a polemical, non-neutral and anachronistic category to the bottom of it. How much effort did that take? --Folantin (talk) 16:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also added material to support the addition of the category. If you would like to stop assuming bad faith, my offer stands. Groupthink (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You copied-and-pasted material from another Wikipedia article. As I have repeated many times now, the opinion of one defunct UK MP taken some obscure article does not represent the balance of scholarly opinion on this subject. You need much better sourcing than that if you are going to fling the "T-word" around on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(Indent reset) As I've already said, stop edit warring, self-revert your last edit, and I'll address your concerns. Groupthink (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert that edit because I would be violating Wikipedia policy. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. --Folantin (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Errr, Groupthink -- please -- terrorism in an article about a 16th-century massacre? That is an anachronism. Is there a scholarly source that uses that word, such as a journal article by a professor of history that specialises in 16th century Wars of Religion? I'm imagining revising the article I wrote on Claude Goudimel to mention that he was victim of a terrorist attack, and it makes my head spin. Please consider the possibility that Folantin has a point. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Historians of 16th-century France just don't tend to use the term "Christian terrorism" when referring to the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre. If someone slapped an "Islamic terrorism" tag on an article about Sultan Selim I's massacres of Shi'ites in Anatolia in the early 1500s it would be quickly removed - and rightly so. It's anachronistic. The article is already categorised (correctly) as "Religious persecution". "Terrorism" is a concept that emerged with the French Revolution before evolving to its modern meaning. It's extremely rare to see events before the 19th century (if that) branded "terrorist" except by analogy. The Islamic terrorism article has multiple problems (not least its title, which should probably be "Islamist terrorism") but all the examples, as far as I can see, are taken from the 20th and 21st centuries. I could find a bunch of references which branded the Assassins as "Muslim terrorists" if I really wanted but our article doesn't call them that and, again, I think that's the right call.--Folantin (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm always open to considering well-reasoned points, but in this instance I will not do so, nor will I make well-reasoned points of my own, until this 3RR matter is resolved. Groupthink (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies are not supposed to be a kind of game. Your unwillingness to engage in discussion is duly noted.--Folantin (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please. You're the one playing games, and I will be happy to engage in discussion once you stop repeatedly reverting my edits and assuming bad faith. Groupthink (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm prepared to engage with rational arguments and discussion of the subject at hand following WP:ENC. I'm not into "Wiki-lawyering". If you have any valid arguments I don't see why you can't reveal them now. --Folantin (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Anacréon

Hi. I have left a massage in the talk page of the article Anacréon you had originally drawn up. Before setting to work I’d like very much to know if you agree. Best.--Jeanambr (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your promptness! Ciao. --Jeanambr (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Les Plaisirs de Versailles

Bonjour Folantin,

Would you mind showing me the exact sentence in which Grove indicates that Charpentier's Les Plaisirs de Versailles should be Les plaisirs de Versailles?

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia opera editors have adopted the method of French capitalisation used by the New Grove Dictionary of Opera, The Viking Opera Guide and other reliable sources (see The New Grove French Baroque Masters p.109 for Les plaisirs de Versailles, to take one example). Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I just fell upon a long 2008 discussion & realise that this is a can of worms into which I am not prepared to dig.

Aurevoir, mon cher ! --Frania W. (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Die Schweizer Familie

Hello,

sometimes the New Grove is not the bible of newest research: Please read as well PIPERS ENZYKLOPÄDIE DES MUSIKTHEATERS, the booklet of the CD and:

• W. Bollert: Joseph Weigl und das deutsche Singspiel, in: Aufsätze zur Musikgeschichte, Bottrop 1938, S. 95-114.
• A. Landau: Die Schweizerfamilie von Joseph Weigl und Ignaz Franz Castelli, in: A. Gerhard, Schweizer Töne. Die Schweiz im Spiegel der Musik, Zürich 2000
• T. G. Waidelich: Zur Rezeptionsgeschichte von Joseph Weigls Schweizer Familie in Biedermeier und Vormärz, in: Schubert:Perspektiven 2, Stuttgart 2002
• Hermann Dechant (Hrsg. der Partituredition): Die Schweizer Familie. Denkmäler Österreichischer Tonkunst (in Vorbereitung).

And why do you not like the link to Vogl?

Weigl himself wrote

Die Schweizer Familie, so you can take that as information in the article.

Best wishes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.204.203 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you add new material then it's up to you to make sure it's referenced. The stuff you added did not correspond to the information in the sources listed at the bottom of the page. I have no objection to you adding the material back with the proper citations. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, please read the informations in the CD-Booklet:

http://www.guildmusic.com/catalog/gui7299z.htm

The team of the production did not use New Grove, it was very specific research …

Here is the article in the booklet:

[removed for copyright reasons - see link above for the text]

85.127.204.203 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You should add some of this this info giving the booklet as a reference. Make sure you don't violate copyright though (I'll probably have to delete the above from this page).--Folantin (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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