User talk:Smeat75/Archive 4

Hello!

And a Happy New Year to you.

I'm not on Wikipedia much these days, but took the time to answer a question placed on my talk page. Now that this has devolved into personal attacks, I must turn to more pressing matters away from the encyclopedia. But I thought I should warn you that your name was just evoked at Talk:Suetonius on Christians.

I really don't know how I could've been more attentive (in returning to a topic I hadn't visited since 2013!), but this is exactly why I don't lavish my time and energy on Wikipedia any longer. I was asked to revisit the translation of this vexatious Latin sentence. I did, and took a lot of time retracing a topic far from my mind, and finally got back to "oh yes, Erich S. Gruen has already taken care of this matter for us." At which point I said that since we have sources dismissing this one point (the translation of impulsore Chresto) of Slingerland as simply in error or ignorance of how to read Latin correctly, our work is done, unless we can find sources that support Slingerland. Of course the disputant didn't want to do the actual work of researching sources; he now simply wishes to beat up on me, and since I'm withdrawing, has vowed to turn to you. Good luck! For this is the sort of user who can't even be bothered to create a user name or sign a comment. And best to you in general, Cynwolfe (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cynwolfe for the message, I have not been on wikipedia for two years precisely because of the sort of stuff you mention, I really regret getting involved in the Jesus in Roman history articles, there are so many POV pushers and editors who know nothing about antiquity and do not care about anything except "I don't think there was ever even such a person as Jesus." Then I also got involved in controversy about Jewish history which was very upsetting. It all started to seem like a massive waste of time and emotional energy.I think I will edit on classical music again, we will see.Smeat75 (talk) 22:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit request for Suetonius on Christians

Hi Smeat75. I have query for you on the Suetonius on Christians Talk page. I would be grateful if you could take a look. No hurry. (I am by the way, as Cynwolfe describes me just above, "the disputant didn't want to do the actual work of researching sources; he now simply wishes to beat up on me [Cynwolfe], and since I'm withdrawing, has vowed to turn to you. Good luck! For this is the sort of user who can't even be bothered to create a user name or sign a comment.")

Historicity of Jesus

You have recently reversed my edition despite the fact that the subject have been discussed with user Donner60 in his own talk page. There is no POV in the edition. I have merely turned a direct quote into an encyclopedic text, clarifying that the assertion made by the christian author is an opinion, and not (by far) academic consensus. Please revert your edition and be mindful of the references added to the article. 177.20.243.189 (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I have added a comment on the article talk page.Smeat75 (talk) 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Giulio Cesare

Thank you for the questions on my talk, - I come here to understand you better. - You asked why the boxes are so important for me. Please look at Falstaff. The box was added by admired and missed Viva-Verdi, - continuing the work of such people is why. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I was sorry to hear that Viva-Verdi had died. He helped me a lot with formatting and so forth when I started trying to improve the Handel opera and oratorio pages. He never said anything about infoboxes to me. In my opinion they do not add anything to the articles on Handel, merely repeat information in the lead and it is better to have the composer's picture and the catalogue of his works at the top of the page. I have never removed infoboxes from other articles and would not try to do so even in articles on Handel works where they are long standing. Smeat75 (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Viva-Verdi didn't speak to me about infoboxes, he just equipped all operas by Verdi with one. - The information in the infobox is the same as in the lead (by definition), but structured, which is good for some readers (sometimes called idiots) whom I am ready to serve also. To me, the image of the first publication of Giulio Cesare says so much more about its style than that of the (too old) composer, - I take the composer's image when no other image is available. - I prefer the bottom navbox to a side navbox anytime. Did you know that for a long time I didn't discover that you have to click on "show" in order to see something? - I will leave Handel works in peace, as French opera ;) - Happy editing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

I am very grateful that you will not add infoboxes to articles on Handel works, but you don't have to "leave them in peace". You have helped me with naming and other issues on articles on Handel anthems and cantatas, and I appreciated it. Best wishesSmeat75 (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Correction

In the discussion to which I have no intention to comment: would you kindly correct the user name of the closer. - I am far happier singing and writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I have corrected it, thanks for pointing that out.Smeat75 (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Please remind me in case you see me in infobox discussions that I have better things to do ;) - like making the psalm a FA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha! Will do, I promise!Smeat75 (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Life is too short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Review of Guy's RfC close

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. FourViolas (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm not 'happy.'

Sorry if this seems like an intrusion to you, but I wanted to let you know that I am not happy nor do I feel like I've won because that group of editors is leaving. I've got issues with some of them. But a decision to leave - especially with invested effort - is a serious one that I've faced as well. And if they're your friends, I hope I understand why you'd be upset at it. LaughingVulcan 02:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I am also not happy about people leaving. To see my name in thread header suggesting that I am the cause adds to unhappiness. Music is the only consolation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not put your name in the thread title and I don't blame you in particular.Smeat75 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I only expressed my ill feelings, - as I can't possibly reply in the thread I needed an outlet, sorry about that. I miss everybody gone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

On the positive side: I had reason to mention Handel's Jubilate here. One more thought: I was also close to leaving, three times, but never over something that - forgive me - looks so small to me. First when a dear friend was driven away by people who were sure he was a sock, second when the greatest editor I came to know was banned by the community, third when it looked to me like Andy would be banned. (I didn't know that arbs can change their mind.) That third time, which I remember vividly, I made up my mind to defiantly stay and not do opponents the favour to leave ;) - I have a red category on my user page expressing that, below my boxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Tim and SchroCat both said it isn't just the infobox issue but constant bickering and bullying that has simply taken the enjoyment out of editing WP for them, very sad. I stopped editing WP for two years for the same reason, not just infoboxes, and coming back things have not improved,in fact they have got worse.Smeat75 (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for Marie Battu and the others, that's what we need. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Nice of you to say so.Smeat75 (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Smeat. Thanks so much for all the new opera articles! I've added two of them to the selection of new articles at the top of WikiProject Opera's talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Smeat75. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Smeat75, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Anita Rachvelishvili

I'm Anita's friend! on english wikipedia you have article about this person. on this article is picture of woman! THIS WOMAN ISN'T Anita Rachvelishvili! please take on (remove) this image from page. Anita Rachvelishvili. p.s plese visit this page and try to convince, that that woman on wiki page isn't famous georgian mezzo-soprano. enclosure: https://www.google.ge/search?q=anita+rachvelishvili&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2-Gn8ojTAhWBXRQKHRmEBCcQ_AUICCgB&biw=1366&bih=662

yours faitfully Jabavashadze12 21:59, 3 april 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jabavashadze12 (talk • contribs)

Leaving an article on entering

template:Meyerbeer operas - Can we take a quick look at it? What I don't like about the concept of navigating away from an article upon entering it has been repeated many times, why not once more? If we have the same navbox for every opera a composer wrote,

• we don't give the reader a feeling for how old the composer was when he wrote the work
• we leave him alone with an image and text that needs to be deciphered (it took me years to find out that something happens when I click "show", and even longer to make sense of the three letters below)
• we don't offer information specific to the work at hand
• we usually present something ugly, with the image not aligned with the dominating coloured boxes on top and bottom (just not as bad as usually for Meyerbeer because his image has no hard frame)
• we duplicate navigation that typically (and here) is found at the bottom

Why would we do that? - What do you think about Mozart's piano concerto? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

One of the main issues for me is to have a picture of the composer at the top of the article. I really revere the composers of the articles I work on and feel it is an appropriate tribute to them. It also unifies the articles on their operas. You don't have to click on the link "show" to see the other works so I don't think it causes many people to "leave on entering". That picture you made into the infobox was beside the cast list before where it feels more suitable to me. Yes we have discussed it before and my opinion is that there does not need to be information repeated in the infobox that is already in the lead.I don't think the pictures of Meyerbeer or Handel in their articles are ugly. Yes I know that the other works are at the bottom also but that doesn't mean it cannot be available elsewhere. I have no opinion really about the Mozart piano concerto article. It makes me feel a little bad to have to argue with you about this as you devote so much effort to improving WP articles on music but I cannot accept that infobox on L'Africaine or other Meyerbeer or Handel operas.Smeat75 (talk) 23:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Understand, thank you for explaining. In the German Wikipedia, no composition (I know) has an image of the composer, I was reverted when I added one. Views are different. I don't think the images of Handel and Meyerbeer are ugly, - what I find ugly is that they are more narrow than the (ugly) boxes. I fixed it for Handel. I also happen to find it misleading to show the old Handel in a work he wrote when he was young. I always add an image of a composer when I have a god one and nothing more specific, look at Medea. (I met him in a performance of the piece.)

Can we do the following: You do with L'Africaine what you feel is right, and I don't interfere? Examples are on L'Arianna and Maritana. A plain image of the composer with a good caption, why not? I promised to revert today, but it gives me a stomach ache to revert to the side navbox, which I tried to explain. It's lacking accessibility (didn't find the word last night): for the vision-impaired, the contrast of letters and background in the boxes is not good, for people with shaky hands, it's tricky to click the show-button, and for stupid folks like me, it's not even obvious that there is something hidden. I'll leave it empty. - Going to sing Der Messias (Mozart arr) in October. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I see that Smerus saved me the stomach ache ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Illustrating an article on music

If you agree, I'd like to talk about how to use images in articles about music. Today's example: Five Childhood Lyrics. I am not against using images of composers, quite the contrary, but in this case, the options are an image of him 10 years too young, or one way too old. It made me look for something else, and I am quite happy with the illustration that one of the text authors made: it captures the spirit well. Tomorrow will be an opera, and we'll see. The image of the composer is again not ideal, but at least close in time. The German Wikipedia offers the entrance to the festival hall. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking me. The Lear illustration is charming in my opinion. I don't have strong feelings about using composers' pictures in articles generally, but I have worked a lot on the Handel and Meyerbeer opera articles, two composers who are very special to me, and I like to keep their images at the top of those articles as a tribute to them.Smeat75 (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

DRN notice: Jesus

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrevor99 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Smeat75. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Anita Rachvelishvili

Hi there. I saw you created the article on Anita Rachvelishvili. There is a great article on her in this month's Opera News if you care to expand the article further. Best.4meter4 (talk) 10:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality?

We don't need no stinkin' quality-we're all too busy doing the box Goose step. ;) We hope (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, never mind the quality, feel the box.Smeat75 (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Rumor has it the next change will be AfD to IfD-if they have a box, they'll be kept. ;) We hope (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

The Census of Quirinius and the Accuracy of Luke's Account

Hello! For your article on the subject, please consider the arguments presented here: http://www.comereason.org/roman-census.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.177.241 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That is apologetics on a Christian fundamentalist website. WP is not a Sunday school lesson, we use scholarly WP:RS.Smeat75 (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

The author of that article accurately represents and fully cites reliable sources: the Bible (NASB), Josephus (The Antiquity of the Jews), Augustus (Res Gestae), Justin Martyr (The First Apology Of Justin), Gleason Archer (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties), Orosius (via John P. Pratt; "Yet another Eclipse for Herod"), et. al. Your article does not sufficiently address both sides of the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.177.241 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica...

...may have IBs, but the British and American Dictionaries of National Biography do not; it may be of use to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

"Thank trolling"

Hi, "Thank trolling" is basically trolling with the thank option (ie pissing that person off), Hope that makes sense, If it doesn't you could read https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes I know what "trolling" is, it never occurred to me however that saying "thank you" to someone could be interpreted as such. It does seem easy to make this particular caffeinated drink boil over.Smeat75 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh right sorry, Well there we are, Anyway happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 23:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you (I guess I can say that since I have never "been formally requested" not to speak to you).Smeat75 (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"So buy our coffee, or ....don't. We don't care." Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Haha, brilliant, thanks. Smeat75 (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

*cough* [1] *cough*, There’s a strong, dark storm heading our way.. –Davey2010^Talk 04:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, isn't that a cute edit summary "trolling away on the big blue sea, fish in my boat flyin to me...". But since he also has an actual member of the arbitration committee on his list of enemies he is collecting diffs of,as well as numerous admins, I do not feel intimidated. What's the worst that can happen anyway, they kick me off WP, well, to be honest that would be their loss and I am sure I could find other productive ways to spend my time.Smeat75 (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This is good with whatever beverage you choose to imbibe. Hey, it's a free country. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yumm yumm, delicious! Thanks! I will enjoy it with my, umm, tea!Smeat75 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

To accompany your Chocolate truffle. Great work. Best regards. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Civility in infobox discussions case opened

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

UK newspaper "unearths" Tacitus' annals

https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/929593/Jesus-christ-proof-roman-crucifixion-tacitus-josephus-bible-real-proof Daily Express 9 March 2018 hahaha

Historicity of Jesus

Hi there - I've just visited the above page and noticed you added a couple of pointers to sources on the 19th February to the second paragraph of the Sources section "ref name=Tuckett126" and "ref name=McK38", but not actually added the sources themselves. Thought you might have overlooked this. Best regards. 89.206.152.226 (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

CMT

Surreal? Yes, welcome to the editing of the CMT article, LOL. Apparently, there a lot of people out there who just don't want to accept historical facts. I've been dealing with CMT proponents (fanatics) since around 2009. Keep up the good work and don't get discouraged. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Otello (Rossini), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bruce Ford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at talk page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire#Youtube_as_a_source — Preceding unsigned comment added by En historiker (talk • contribs) 15:41, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

You reverted my edit with the dismissive edit summary that "we do not label reliable sources as to beliefs or affiliations" I had added that John P. Meier was an American biblical scholar and Roman Catholic priest, by no stretch of the imagination could this be called labelling "beliefs or affiliations" it is a neutral description of what he is from his own Wikipedia page? Theroadislong (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5

Hi Smeat75 - you left a note on this talk page, and I wrote a response. I believe you may have overlooked it, so I am writing to check on that. I hope my comments are helpful. Thanks. Zingarese (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Some of the things you've said about VA recently pain me somewhat. It's kind of hurtful to have something you've been working on for quite some time be dismissed as a "silly game". Ironically, the sections you and others have the greatest complaints about are the sections I have had the least input in. And I, for one, have no objection to you notifying WikiProjects, though I'd caution that you are likely to receive little or no response.

Maybe VA/5 isn't going to be viable. But I hope we can be afforded a little more time to try. Levels 1, 2, 3 and 4 are relatively stable and the articles on them have been assented to by at least five editors. That's the assent of more editors than many successful AfDs and even some ITNs. pbp 17:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to hurt anyone's feelings, I was seeking advice from colleagues.Smeat75 (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TonyBallioni (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Umm I have not "recently" shown an interest in editing articles on living people, I have been doing it for years and created quite a few, but on opera singers and scholars of Early Christianity, so obviously no one noticed. What you mean is not to edit war on Jeremy Corbyn and I doubt I will attempt to edit the page at all.Smeat75 (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

(watching:) To whom do you talk? It's a standard message with no knowledge of the good things you do. I host a similar one, defiantly not archiving ;) - A great singer died, as you probably noticed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I was just venting a little at being "templated" like this when I am very well aware of all the "rules" around here.Yes I saw that about Inge Borkh, thanks for updating her info.Smeat75 (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Like Gerda says, it’s a standardized message. I handed it out to everyone who was recently active of the Corbyn article or talk page because 1RR is now active there. It’s just an annoying bureaucratic formality we normally hand out to people who are active on articles with active sanctions. We literally aren’t allowed to not template in discretionary sanctions areas. I normally include a note with these, but I handed out a lot yesterday on Corbyn, so I thought it’d be easier to reply if people had questions. It says nothing good or bad about what you’ve done: it just lets you know ArbCom has authorized special rules on BLPs. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)