User talk:Dronkle/Archives/2010/January

Baklava

Hello, an editor on baklava keeps deleting the Vryonis section (which you earlier restored) and adding a supposed local Philadelphia spelling 'baklavia' to the article. Could you check in? Thanks, --macrakis (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Peter

I really appreciate that Peter, though I don't think it will get anywhere. One thrives best here by making a neat distinction between the real world and the virtual society that throngs this place, which is governed by a unique set of judicial protocols to enable a collective project. Those who master the dialectical machinery of suit and accusation can, with persistence, produce all sorts of wonderful caricatures. It leaves their victims, who forebear imitating this conduct because they cannot leave off the good manners they were trained to express in their real lives, incapable of effective self-defence. It is rather like Evans-Pritchard living among the Zande, and being charged with witchcraft. He would know that this is a native belief, firmly warranted by the traditions of the tribe, and that his best chance is to pretend to be a native and use the indigenous logic of challenging the accusation, rather than introduce to the native court the principles of western judicial thought and logic that would dismount the whole thrust of the sorcery smear. But it wouldn't work. Appeals here humiliate in any case those who, in appealing, give the impression that the original charges were more or less just. Best wishes for the New Year, and for productive editing. Don't waste time on this trivia. The damage is done, and that's that.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Baklavia

Fine with me, but I actually don't know the procedures -- do I need to get involved? --macrakis (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein/Nableezy

Hi Peter cohen. I would like to work on two things regarding what has happened to Nableezy. One is to file an appeal of Sandstein's decision which I will begin in my user space shortly. The second, concurrent to this, would be opening a User RfC on Sandstein regading his abuse of his admin powers. I have asked Gatoclass for some advice on how to proceed. I hope he responds soon. When I have drafts up in my user space, I will be contacting you for feedback. I hope you will co-sign both the appeal and the User RfC. Also, check out Nableezy's talk page to see what has happened most recently and why these steps are absolutely necessary. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 19:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Peter. Your recollection of the first part is mostly correct. I've given a brief summary of what was happened since then at User talk:Gatoclass#Request for advice. I will make sure to include all relevant details in any summary going to appeal (though its going to quite long). As of now, I am waiting for advice from Gatoclass beore proceeding further, further to the advice of G-Dett, whose advice, when she was allowed to edit in our arena, I always appreciated and took to heart in the past, and it never let me down. :) So thanks for your feedback and advice, which I will also heed once I get down to writing things down. I guess there's no harm in starting now in user sub space and waiting before taking it anywhere official. Tiamut^talk 20:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Nableezy has decided to file an appeal at AE. Tiamut^talk 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

JIDF

Hi Peter. Thank you for your note. I've been very busy lately, but I think I'll be able to spend more time looking at the article in the coming days. Thanks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

talk page conduct

Hi Peter,

A basic rule in wikipedia's talkpage is not to make changes to a comment after they've been responded to if the changes make the response moot. A reader of the page has no way of knowing that changes took place and will not understand the responders response. You did just that with these changes to your comment. I'm assuming good faith that it is just something you overlooked. In any case please correct that now. One way to correct it is to cross out the original comments by placing an <s></s> on either side of the comments you want to "erase." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK reply

Thanks for taking a look at the Trust article. I made some changes per your comments that I hope will make the hook fit better. If not, I think Henrik's suggestion is good. Having the Trust article as a DYK would be great as it will surely increase the chanes of getting the Trust to make even more picture donations.

Interesting to hear about your McKee connection. I have yet to meet anyone involved with the project (only e-mailed with Dobbs and Barker), but I'm kinda hoping I'll get invited to the grand opening of the new musuem in 2012 if I get them enough good press through my wikiwork. :-) If anything, it's a good excuse to pay a first visit to Portsmouth.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah incident

Hi Peter, I've made some changes to the article that might alleviate some of the concerns raised, if you're willing to take another look. I've outlined them here. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks, much appreciated. I've fixed three of your four points, and have left a note on the page for you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bayreuth canon

I'm a bit surprised that Wagner Project members haven't thus far shown any interest in the FLC. Do they know it's there? Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hummus

Thanks for your kind words on the Talk page. What do you think of my proposed solution to the World Record Hummus business? On a different topic, do you think we could re-try making the (in my opinion unnecessary and redundant) history of the ingredients section much more concise? --macrakis (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at Ariel (city) out of curiosity -- it does seem hard to reach NPOV on pages like that. See what you think of my Talk comment. --macrakis (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Category for deletion: Your opinion needed

There is a category which is being discussed for deletion which I see great use in. It is: Category:Musicians who have served in the military. I wonder if you would check it out, and offer your opinion, either way, "Keep" or "Delete", here. (I hope you will let me know whether you find this request inappropriate. Cheers!)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Anarchism GA review

Hullo Peter, I've had a go at addressing the bulk of the GA concerns and am reasonably confident of being active on the review if there's a chance to close it out successfully and dragging the article up to standards. Take a look when you get the chance, but there's no hurry as far as I'm concerned. Cheers,  Skomorokh  07:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Flower

Hi Peter, I've just declined a speedy deletion, but I think the author could do with some help, see Talk:Sara Flower. As its Opera, I was wondering if you'd be willing to give it a quick look? ϢereSpielChequers 11:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Elisabeth von Magnus

Hallo Peter, thanks for dealing with EvM, - my interest in her was just in one of the many soloists of the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra & Choir Bach project. She has a German article of 2007, and I found the family relationship quite interesting, but when I inserted it on de-NHarnoncourt I received quite strong a reaction, and have no time nor interest personally to persue the topic, there are so many other singers and ensembles I care about. Good luck! - For Ridderbusch: Teresa_Żylis-Gara#Recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Golan mountain mediation

I'm thinking about requesting an official medcom mediation for the Golan mountain names. If I start one, would you be interested in participating? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Bach cantatas

Hallo Peter, late thanks for the invitation to the portals! (I was too busy when I got it.) I just started the last one of the Bach cantata singers, a soprano worth expanding, Ruth Ziesak. Now I have a question concerning {{Bach cantatas}} (bottom of List of cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach): 190 leads not to a cantata but to the motet of the same title, 192 to the hymn of the same title (in English). Where and how would these ambiguities be corrected? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the title-thread that I will follow. Cantatas 1-45 are covered in a kind of system, some of the others are covered separately, probably for importance, some titles lead to s.a., the majority of more than 200 is not yet treated, just look at red and blue in the ?? - how is this thing in { } called? Take your time, I'm off for a week or so, and you can answer here. - "Template", right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Template is the word. And Template:Bach cantatas is the specific one that you are talking about. And yes it links them by name and not number.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: WikiGnome request

Hi Peter! I suppose my real interest has always been in devising or improving tools to make repetitive work easier for humans (but not to the extent of writing a bot, which I leave to other people). Mostly this has been in the area of anti-vandalism, of course, and my intent is to develop that by making PILT more sensitive to obscure vandalism (since ClueBot and the Hugglers have cornered the market in speed).

I'd like to help with your current problem, but right now real life is making unreasonable demands on my time and especially on my creative energy. I wish you luck, but I don't see that I can do anything worthwhile. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration

AFriedman (talk) has given you a falafel sandwich! Falafel sandwiches are a specialty of the Middle East. With a little tahini and maybe a spicy sauce, they are delicious and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day.

Spread the goodness of falafel by adding {{subst:Falafel}} to someone's Talk page with a friendly message! Give a falafel sandwich to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.

Nice to see you here! Do you think you would want to participate in recruiting/welcoming people to this project as well? I've added info about that to the bottom of the WikiProject page. --AFriedman (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply from MZK1

I hope this is the proper way to do this. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you for welcoming me. I have been around for a bit longer, but only opened an account recently. Until now, I only made minor edits (the first was to add a comma) and basically stayed on the talk pages. I think the tone of an article is often close in importance to its contents; you can see the edit I made to the Chareidi page for an example.

Collaberation would be wonderful. I am not looking for my viewpoint to predominate, only for balance. Unfortunately, on this issue, Arab claim is that there is only one side, basically taking media and academic bias and codifying it into Wikipedia. More unfortunately, according to Wikipedia rules, they have a point. (There is also an attempt to conflate political decisions by countries with general opinion, which I think is less defensible.)

Right now the last part is almost the size of an article. (I wish to avoid it becoming one.) The originator has posted a lot of stuff from minor sources (see my comments in-line). It really should be rewritten shorter and balanced, but I am afraid I would not get away with this. Also, I am not expert enough to really do this properly.

My issue is that I am afraid I have caused real harm, in the real world, outside Wikipedia. People look here first for correct information. At the end of the day, real people can get hurt. (I live in missle range from Lebanon, so I should know.) I hope someone will get involved.

Finally, there are two unattributed sentences. I flagged them, and was going to wait two weeks; if no cite was forthcoming, I was going to delete them. According to the rules I should be able to do this; but the real Wikipedia world seems not always to follow this. Can I do this without being banned?

(Feel free to delete this.)Mzk1 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Peter,

1) I think you should go ahead with an RfA. Try to avoid edit wars—always good advice, but particularly important before an RfA.

2) Sorry. I've been meaning to comment at JIDF but I forgot. I'll do it today.

— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your tips and for sharing your edits. I'm very impressed with how generously you welcome new users. Having said this, I'm not sure I agree with your advice to new users to edit non-controversial articles--a wolf that learns how to pretend to be a sheep is still a wolf. Also, I was thinking about the falafel template. The Users who join IPCOLL essentially sign themselves to maintaining NPOV and mediating disputes, and are aware that they are throwing themselves headlong into a highly controversial area of Wikipiedia. Even the article about falafel is controversial. However, the true extremists probably aren't interested in being "collaborators" with the other side. The idea of the falafel template is that it's a nice colorful picture of something that would be so much nicer to share together than to fight about.

And as to my edits re: Jewish subjects, you may want to see what I've added to Talk:Tzniut, Judaism, Talk:Judaism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, etc. Actually, I spend more time editing these than editing IPCOLL articles. --AFriedman (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciated your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, most new editors. You seem like a very reasonable person, you may be interested in joining the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. Best wishes in your editing! Ikip 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Twice Through the Heart

You had nominated Twice Through the Heart for GA review at WP:GAN. I have done a review of the article and made some notes to be addressed at Talk:Twice Through the Heart/GA1. maclean (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, what an awesome table! Thank you

I posted the wonderful table on my talk page, thank you.

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		The "What a Brilliant Idea!" Barnstar should be awarded to a user who figures out an elegant solution to a particularly burdensome bottleneck or problem, or who identifies a means to improve Wikipedia in a profound way. This barnstar is awarded to Peter cohen, for his diligence and hard work, and coming up with incredible ways of gather information. You are a wonderful asset to the project, thank you! Ikip 02:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Table mentioned on Wikipedia_Signpost

The most popular newsletter by far, I mentioned your table in the comments section:

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-01-25/BLP_madness Ikip 05:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international cricket centuries by Donald Bradman/archive1

Hi Peter, and thanks for your review of this article (and for your recent FLC reviews in general). When you get the chance, can you revisit this FLC? It's very close to be being closed, but I want you to be satisfied your issues were resolved before archiving the discussion. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please keep updated?

This new page:

• Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#Phase_II

thank you... Ikip 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Dronkle/Archives/2010/January, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

refactored, Ikip 05:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You may have noted that per LAR's wise suggestion, I have expanded the scope of the discusion and appreciate input from any and all concerned editors. Please reconsider offering your input now. Ikip 22:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)