User talk:Folantin/Archive 5

And here's another piece of the mysterious GA criteria
I think you'll like this one. Moreschi (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC) M. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC) M again, non-urgent but amusing. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 11:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC) R & R --Folantin (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC) M. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 22:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * what the hell is driving these people? WikiProject Good Articles even has a newsletter now, and an impressive 195 members. Imagine what we could do if, say, Wikiproject Ancient Near East had this amount of effort flowing into it. How do they manage to deliver such abominably poor work with such resources? Is this about people interested in rating other people's work, never mind they don't have the faintest idea what it is about? Is it worth the effort to try to get back anything remotely like the original unbureaucratic "GA process" of "hey, I know something about this subject, and I can see this is a good article, well done"? sigh. --dab (𒁳) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "How do they manage to deliver such abominably poor work with such resources?" Search me, it's one of the miracles of Wikipedia. I've thought of a nice motto for them: "We strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel". They can have that for free, I'm a generous guy. I submitted an article to them with over 30 inline references and it was "quick-failed" for completely lacking citations. On the other hand this article passed with flying colours, despite the almost total lack of references for the population statistics (which seemed to change every week when I had it on my watchlist). However, they don't like criticism very much so don't go hurting their feelings by complaining. They're good at making sure dashes are distinguished from hyphens though amd what would our content be without that?--Folantin (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Italian poetry
Thank you for noticing. These are my first steps in en.wiki, so please correct my errors (in English and others). --Broletto (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

April (French) Singer(s) of the Month
I wonder if you are going to contribute your ideas about French singers of the 17th/18th centuries (on the project page)? I guess you have better sources than we have. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Katyn massacre
You have told: Undid. Eh?

-Why? has not had time to correct a mistake. Maybe my IP guilty? 92.245.39.37 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Working together
I have taken down my request of having province or satrapy in the title for the sake of trying to work together, but what argument would you have with the title of either Athura or Achaemenid Assyria? Chaldean (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith while Soviet support to Iraq is being edited and improved
You had every right, in a deletion survey, to state your opinion.

I am actively working on the article, although I have to do my regular work at the same time, in a house that has the confusion of having been presented with two unexpected newborn kittens. Please assume good faith on my part in continuing. You have made it clear that you believe the article should be deleted, which is your right.

What does not come across as constructive is criticisms of individual references as I am actively writing. I'm afraid your last complaint about a Fukuyama reference is not necessarily reflective of the period the work actually covered. Having published four books myself, quite some months may intervene between the author finishing the work, and the actual publication date. A June 1989 publication date hardly suggests the book is focused on the short time since the end of the war in 1988.

There will probably be more reference to Fukuyama. While I am not a newcomer, WP:BITE seems to apply if you make frequent criticisms of an in-process article. Let's assume good faith on both sides.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Really, I came to start this article out of a much broader context, which you can see on my userpage: establishing that a great many countries were involved in supporting Iran and/or Iraq. I had no specific preconceptions about the Soviet Union, and am writing this article with an open mind. If I put it in terms of the classic scientific method, I am testing the hypothesis that the Soviet Union supported Iran.


 * If it did, it was not nearly as major as its support to Iraq, but the superpowers had competing interests with both sides. I'm not prepared, as yet, to flatly state there was no Soviet support to Iran. Do you have sources that clearly establish this? At this point, I am tracking down passing references to support.


 * As with the Iran-Contra affair, the U.S., while tilted to Iraq, did, through a third country, provide some meaningful support to Iraq -- 2000 proven antitank missiles are not trivial in a war with significant tank involvement. It may well be that the Soviet Union, much as the U.S., used proxies to support other foreign policy needs. There's no evidence that either superpower particularly cared for either of the belligerents, but it is certainly not unprecedented that they would play both sides, as has been done in other conflicts.


 * At this point, I would ask you to give sources, or at least wait before criticizing partial references and also making flat statements I am wrong. When an editor/author tells me they are working on something, I recognize people have other demands on their time, and I'm apt to check back in a few days rather than a few hours.


 * Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternate title
Your suggestion makes perfect sense if the article was being done in isolation. The whole motivation for doing this is to examine, country by country, that supported Iran, Iraq, or both. Several editors, myself among them, felt that it could reduce the POV-pushing to have a multinational set of subpages from Iran-Iraq War. You can see the overall plan at User:Hcberkowitz.

Of course, the major Soviet involvement was with Iraq, and it was quite substantial, as was the French involvement. We are dealing, however, with a POV that the United States was the only significant third-country player in the war, and somehow, the US was fighting alongside the Iraqis. That Iraq principally used Soviet and French weaponry seems irrelevant to this POV. In no way am I saying the US wasn't involved, but the only way I think we can get balance is having articles on as many countries that we can find participated in some way.

I certainly don't have the time to write them all, and I prefer to write them on countries where I have some familiarity. Since you seem to have expertise on Russia, I'd be delighted to get constructive criticism on Soviet support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, which was a good deal easier to draft -- but it's by no means final. Unfortunately, while I'm normally a city person, I'm living temporarily in a rural area, with most of my books in storage, and a two-hour or so drive to the nearest serious university library. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Books
Might I suggest you look at some of the talk page discussions at Iran-Iraq War, which may give you a reason that more than one editor thinks that the country+side articles are necessary? As far as Google Books, yes, I have access, but I do not have the budget to buy and download every relevant book.

Respectfully, I am not going to change the title unless there is a consensus to delete, or if, after I get it in better shape, I am convinced there was no Soviet support of Iran. If you look at my userpage listing of planned articles relating to Iran-Iraq, you will see quite a few countries that supported only one side; I am perfectly willing to say that a country did not support Iran but supported Iraq, or vice versa. Quite a few countries, however, did do so, sometimes only as a way of hiding embargoed shipments.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that you have an reasonable refutation of a POV
What you quoted makes perfect sense to me. Unfortunately, the discussion on the main Iran-Iraq page has some people with a furious POV, some people that actually want to learn (it was long enough ago that people didn't experience it in daily news), and some that want to build an excellent and comprehensive article.

AFAIK, the Soviet Union was not involved in the complex clandestine procurements. As one British MP put it, if all the end user certificates made out to Singapore were correct, Singapore would have the largest military in the world. In no way is the Soviet Union being singled out for criticism. There have been, however, various reports of low-level, even diplomtic, involvement.

In researching some of the other countries, I personally have learned a lot. One of the unforgettable images of the war were Iraqi volunteers, not members of penal battalions, running into minefields. Until I started researching other countries, I didn't know who designed the mines, initially made them, and then who made them after export controls cracked down.

To put it a different way, is there a reason to treat the Soviet Union differently than other states? The U.S. and U.K., for example supplied some things to both sides. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A few clarifications
Truly, I appreciate an objective view. In the lengthy discussions, there have been allegations of some Soviet support to Iran. I honestly don't know if there were or not, but enough major powers did things for both, and the Cold War was still operating although warmer, I believe it's worth an open-minded effort to see if there is any substance. Fukuyama seems to think so, for example, in Chapter IV, "New Soviet Diplomacy in the Persian Gulf." I'm still studying it, but I find it fascinating, especially in the discussion, contrary to stereotypes, of the Soviet Union being able to change policies rapidly, while the Americans were stuck.

There is a heading for "Arab states" under support to Iran, with separate entries for Libya and Syria. That's a working list; some sources on funding grouped "Arab states" together and I flagged that for further research. Clearly, the GCC role has to be documented, especially the Saudis. I can only plead that while others have worked on the drafts once they existed in at least stub form, I'm only one person and have been trying to cover a complex subject. A very similar approach of going to exhaustive subpages had an enormously positive benefit in getting Central Intelligence Agency to improve its quality, and, in some strange way, get a lot of people with strong POVs to relax. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind being aware of a grown man either crying or hysterical
But that's my reaction when I think of the infobox affair. The Military History Project developed the infobox, and there have been a fair number of MILHIST people explain things such as the difference between "combatant" and "belligerent", and that a basic rule is that if some concept becomes difficult to handle in an infobox, it doesn't belong there.

As you've probably gathered, there is something of a clique that absolutely want the United States blamed for engineering the whole war for anti-Iranian reasons. Funny, I've always thought Saddam had a bit to do with it. As far as the U.S., or anyone else, pulling Saddam's strings, that happened only once, and it was around his neck.

There is an argument that the mixed messages delivered by U.S. Ambassador Glaspie to Saddam might have made him think he could invade Kuwait without consequences, but I find it very hard to think of a counterpart action for Iran-Iraq.

It's sad, really, that the Arbitration Committee considers an infobox "content", and won't touch such matters. Enormously more progress could be made if the infobox were banished.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

On the nature of support and the naming of cats articles
Your point about the neutrality of titles is a good one, which I think comes from your not being involved in the Iran-Iraq battles. "support" is something used a great deal by the POV-pushers, and you may have noticed that a focal point of that is the infobox. The agenda there is putting the U.S. in the infobox because it provided so much "support" to Saddam.

There's only one reason that any case can be made for the U.S. being there: that it was in direct combat with Iran. This has its own problems, because the POV faction then massively expands this to suggest that the US was the puppetmaster and was fighting side-by-side with Saddam. My personal opinion, which to some extent can be sourced, is that the "Tanker War" was more properly the "Iran-US War", and the key issue was freedom of navigation, not economic assistance and general leverage to Iraq. Yes, there was a component of strong anti-Iranian feeling, in the U.S., that lowered the threshold of opening fire; some of the Iranians simply do not understand the depth of U.S. popular feeling about the Embassy hostage situation. As far as the Airbus and Vincennes, I believe CAPT Rogers' actions were whitewashed; I know enough about the details of the AEGIS combat system to be appalled at the aggressiveness and technical incompetence he showed. A court-martial for negligent homicide would have been ore appropriate. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand about the time
I'm going to try to get some additional input, from people that were not involved in the detail of Iran-Iraq, to see if the two-article vs. one-article seems inherently more reasonable, if POV is not considered. If the consensus is one article, I can certainly merge my Soviet articles. How would that work best, and avoid duplicate effort, with what you've done?

The Soviet article is less challenging, from an editing standpoint, than, for example, Singapore, which clearly provided support, sometimes simply as an intermediary, for both Iran and Iraq. That would be my only reservation that has nothing to do with POV management.

Again, thanks. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Satellite (orbital) and satellite (political) actions
Interesting. It's fairly well established, I think, that the U.S. gave satellite photography (IMINT) to Iraq, but I've seen a few references that suggested, for some reason, the U.S. also gave it to Iran. As you point out, there have been some reports the Soviet Union gave IMINT to the Iranians. Somewhere, I've noted a report of changes in the orbit of Soviet satellite(s) to give better coverage of the Iran-Iraq front, or possibly of Diego Garcia. This is a sensitive area, and some of the sensitivity goes back to early arms control discussion between the US and USSR (see Intelligence collection management and SIGINT Operational Platforms by Nation); while it's not something I can officially source, I discussed this with several of the people on the U.S. side, who swore that while we didn't want to give away exact capabilities, it was the Soviets that insisted on no public confirmation. As you'll see from the latter wikilink, the US didn't admit to the existence of intelligence satellites for other than IMINT until 1996, so I tend to doubt the US offered SIGINT to anyone.

If either the US or USSR gave intelligence to both sides, it raises interesting questions. Was the purpose, perhaps, to help them see the stalemate and move toward peace talks, or, more probably I think, to exhaust both sides?

The arms sales by Soviet clients are interesting. You've probably seen that the Soviets did object to Libya providing advanced naval mine technology to Iran, so, in an indirect way, there's evidence that the USSR approved, or at least tolerated, other sales.

I've been thinking of the mechanics of merging articles. If we did this, one broad way would be a foreign policy, a military relations with Iraq, and a military relations with Iran first-level headings. Perhaps export control might be another section, much briefer here than with most other countries. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Next steps?
While I think I did find some interesting information last night, I'm getting to a point of diminishing returns with Soviet support for Iran. I do think it is relevant, in whatever combination of articles eventually results, to mention Soviet initiatives that started during the war (e.g., the Deputy Prime Minister and natural gas expert visits in 1986) that may or may not have come to fruition during the war. Also, you'll note that I do have a sourced entry for some direct sales of undefined, but military by context, "ground equipment".

Before I take off the "under construction" tag, which may re-trigger a "traveling circus" angry editor, I'd like your thoughts on next steps. I've been thinking of the structure of merged article(s). Foreign policy works well simply with a chronological organization, but the military is awkward, if for no other reason than for level of detail. There are a few tricky issues in organization: for example, should support for the air defenses of both Iran and Iraq be listed together, or should one country's attack aviation be listed with the other country's defenses to it? Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem here. I just wanted you to know why I wasn't taking off "under construction" when I wasn't actively changing. As far as I'm concerned, it is in a different sense of construction, frozen so you can digest it. If a particular editor objects, I will ignore it/revert changes as appropriate. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Defining goals

 * I'm copying your response here, as it's easier for me to read in one piece. May I suggest we have the discussion on the talk page of one of the draft articles?

Folantin wrote,

I still don't see how this fits in with the picture in my article. The USSR and Iran continued some non-military commerce between each other, but that's about it. Saddam starting the war really annoyed the Soviets because they didn't want to have to choose sides. I think the clandestine offer of support to Iran in the first phase of the war (when the Iranians were on the defensive) was an attempt to maintain the "balance" in the region. Once the Iranians started winning in 1982 and threatened to set up the "Islamic Republic of Iraq", then the Soviets definitely tilted in favour of the Iraqis to prevent the collapse of Saddam's regime. I can't see how this can possibly have been a Cold War "proxy war" between the USSR and the USA, because who was on the pro-Iranian side? That's absolutely incompatible with the huge military support the Soviets (especially Gorbachev) gave to Iraq. You've also got to take into consideration the massive snubs the Iranians delivered to the Soviets (such as the crackdown on the Iranian communists in 1983). They didn't want to be allied with either of the superpowers. --Folantin (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yesterday, I found several accounts, multiply sourced, about where the Soviets provided assistance in the very beginning of the war, and then as part of economic and diplomatic initiatives discussed in 1985 and implemented in 1986.


 * We are in complete agreement that the Soviets gave massive aid to Iraq, but let me elaborate on the proxy war aspect. By proxy war, I do not mean something like Vietnam, where the superpowers were intimately involved. Something that is too often ignored is that Iraq started the war for its own reasons, and Iran had its own reasons for what it considered an acceptable war.


 * Nevertheless, the United States, Soviet Union, and PRC all wanted influence in the area, during and after the war. China and North Korea, and many Soviet satellites, were the major arms providers to Iran, along with Libya and Syria. The latter two, and to some extent North Korea, did more transfer of Soviet (and Chinese) equipment from their own stockpiles, which the Soviets then replaced -- it's very analogous to Iran-Contra, where the U.S didn't directly send weapons to Iran, but had Israel send them, and then restocked the Israelis with new supplies of the weapons they had transferred.


 * The Iranians didn't want to be allied with either of the superpowers, and I'll add China to the traditional two, since China was, by this time, very much competing with the Soviet Union.


 * Have you looked at my article recently? I was adding content until around 22:00 Eastern US time (GMT-5). Frankly, I was quite surprised about the intelligence bases, which is more my field. I hadn't known about them. There is also substantial evidence that Soviet clients and satellites, with Soviet support, supplied Iran with Soviet cooperation.


 * None of the major players expected a traditional alliance with Iran. What they wanted to do was retain influence, and, especially after the war, keep Iran from getting closely to both of the other two.


 * Some material I found last night indicated that the Soviets exchanged clandestine aid, or authorized sales through third countries, in order to establish regional intelligence bases in Iran, which, coupled with [....]

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose we're looking at "support" from different angles. I see "Soviet support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War" as implying substantial, direct military support rather than, say, continuing economic cooperation or turning a blind eye to its allies supplying arms to Iran. "None of the major players expected a traditional alliance with Iran". But I think the Soviets really wanted that. Of course, they misinterpreted the Islamic Revolution; "anti-American" did not automatically mean "pro-Soviet". What the USSR really wanted was an end to the war, not because they were pacifists, but because the conflict between two potential allies was inconvenient to them. (More later). --Folantin (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyway, this has been a bit of an excursion for me from my planned contributions to Wikipedia. I think you should continue to develop your article and we'll see what happens. I doubt if it will be deleted in the current AfD because the balance of opinion seems to be in favour of keeping it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Maybe they will converge later. It's clear that we have different ideas of "support", which is not meant in any negative way. The definition of "support" is a problem in the Iran-Iraq page itself, more than in most rational discussions. It's hard to imagine that the Soviet Union and France didn't support Iraq, but there are editors that claim only the US supported either belligerent. Cheers! Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(Butting in) The Islamic Republic's national motto during the Iran-Iraq war was "neither West (USA) nor East (USSR), only the Islamic Republic". As Folantin pointed out, the IRI started cracking down on the communist party in 1982-1983, put their members on trial on charges of "espionage for USSR", and subsequently expelled the staff of USSR's embassy in Terhan.--CreazySuit (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I might be mildly bold to suggest it, we are not trying to solve the content of that article any longer. We have agreed to disagree.


 * The continuing discussion is on another of his userpages, wherewe are looking at ways of reducing edit wars and hostility in articles that deal with national or ethnic issues, especially contemporary ones. I mentioned the article only for background, and, while there might, at first, have been some heat, I valued his exchange with me and, once we started exchanging messages, felt nothing personal in it, only a desire to be accurate about the subject.


 * If you have ideas on how to have a less confrontational approach on Iran-Iraq War and related pages, it would be very welcome. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Yes, I was certain I had already signed, I just had no idea where. :) -- Relata refero (disp.) 09:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll start collecting things on the Bronze Horseman. You're right, the current article is pathetic. The Dziady article is even smaller, but at least looks more respectable somehow. -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I have some lying around somewhere. Unfortunately the analysis I remember best was the introduction to an edition published by that treasure-trove of critical thought, Progress Publishers, which isn't exactly something one can structure an article round... -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Armia Krajowa
Thank you for commenting on that issue. Since we agree in our reasoning about the current version, could you remove the NPOV tag from the current version? I feel it would be better for a neutral editor to do so, if I as an involved party would do so, it may lead to bad faith edit warring.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, although playing's a devil advocate I will note that a user has asked for clarification if you and moreschi have also read the claims of atrocities against civilian population (your post have concentrated on the issue of collaboration). Do note that I addressed that issue at the bottom of this thread, and it is mentioned both in the RfC commentand the noticeboard request.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Of course, some are not easily convinced by criticism on talk. Could you comment on talk regarding this issue? I hope that one or two clear comments from neutral editors will put an end to this issue.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No hurry; the article has waited long and can wait a bit longer :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Penny for your thoughts?
What d'you reckon to be the most sensible name for the article currently titled Azerbaijanis in Armenia? The current title? Azeris in Armenia? Turkic peoples in Armenia? Confusion seems to be arising over the meanings of "Azerbaijani": one denoting a member of the ethnic group, the other denoting a citizen of Azerbaijan - which meaning, they're all arguing, are we using here? I'd have thought Azeris in Armenia would be best, to remove the ambiguity (because "Azeris" 9 times out 10 means the ethnic group). Your opinion? Cheers, Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fazri?
Isn't this a violation of WP:NEO and WP:OR? The person who coined the term is not an academic, linguist or even a notable politician, and the term is hardly, if ever, used outside the fringe pan-Turkist advocacy blogs laden with ethnic hatred and ethno-narcissism. Nothing on Google books either. --CreazySuit (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. It should be nominated for deletion per concerns about WP:NOTABILITY and as a possible WP:COATRACK. I was planning to do so myself but it was so late at night. I now note someone else has PROD'ed it. However, I had to revert the comment in the article that Zamani was a "racialist Pan-Turkist" immediately because you can't say that without backing it up with some solid sourcing - see Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. On the larger topic, this commentary by Graeme Wood of The Atlantic Monthly, might be of interest to you.--CreazySuit (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rex's essay
I certainly don't indent to edit war over this, particularly in your userspace, but I do think it's a good essay. The fact that the author got banned should not invalidate all of his contributions or thoughts.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Rex was banned for being a Dutch chauvinist POV-pusher so the essay is probably a case of "it takes one to know one". PS: I'm a bit short of time this week but I will get back to the AK article if I get a chance. --Folantin (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not defending Rex's behavior, but I will again repeat that being a "criminal" does not invalidates one's all work. Rex might have been a "chauvinist POV-pusher", but his essay seems to me neutral and useful. Have you read it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean this then I'm still not happy with having that as a link because it reflects all too clearly Rex's other obsession, which was having a crack at the Germans. Now I'm well aware there are a few too many German nationalist POV-pushers on Wikipedia (and, in fact, the very worst example of an ethnic chauvinist we've ever had, way back in the mists of time, was a German - or rather Prussian - editrix), but I also remember Rex's campaigns at the end of last year to render Potsdamer Platz as "Potsdam Square", to play up Beethoven's "Dutch" ancestry (it was Flemish and it was largely irrelevant anyway) and his wonderful piece of original research demonstrating that the Austin Powers villain Goldmember was really German rather than "freaky deaky Dutch". Since I had to waste a good deal of my own time trying to ensure neutrality on these matters, I'm rather reluctant to have the perpetrator's work linked from my page. I don't think it contains any particularly dazzling insights in any case. --Folantin (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is nonetheless a relevant essay. I do not say we should endorse it or advertise as the top quality material, but as a see also it is relevant - simply that, nothing more, nothing less.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

"common knowledge"
Who says it's "common knowledge" that Nader admired Genghis Khan? Genghis Khan is viewed as an antagonist in Iranian history. I seriously doubt the validity of this claim, please provide a citation. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the article: "After the Persians had forced the Uzbek khanate of Bokhara to submit, Nader wanted Reza to marry the khan’s elder daughter because she was a descendant of his hero Genghis Khan, but Reza flatly refused and Nader married the girl himself". Read the linked Encyclopedia Iranica article: "Nader's career now entered a new phase: the invasion of foreign territory to pursue dreams of a world empire that could resemble the domains of Chinghis Khan and Timur". --Folantin (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the citation. I thought the assertion was made solely based on the fact that he held a Kurultai, which would have been original research...As for Caucasia, he actually controlled the entire Transcaucasus. Is that incorrect? --CreazySuit (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure he ever took western Transcaucasia. --Folantin (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying
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, Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 22:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic Wars
Hi. I think the issues at and related articles like  could be brought up at  your Ethnic Warrring subpage. Basically, there has been a very long dispute going on about Bosniaks not being Slavs. Do you know of any similar situations in other articles? I think something like a noticeboard to combat that would be useful. I haven't read your entire subpage (it's a bit long for me), so sorry if I'm repeating something that someone else has said. Regards,  Balkan Fever  04:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the debate has got a bit long and confusing but some clear ideas have come out of it. I think everyone who commented there supported the creation of an "Ethnic Warring Noticeboard". I'm still waiting to see if this official, "in camera" group comes up with anything, but in the absence of any response from them over the next month I'll start a petition to set up such a Noticeboard. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox classical composer
This was recreated and I've put this up for deletion (and blocking) see Templates_for_deletion. Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Opera talk page
Thanks for your reply. I really need to get a consensus here so I can proceed without opera project members criticizing me for removing the opera project tag from these articles. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Victory Day
Thank you for your interest. What is to do about the issue? 82.131.24.88 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've got no plans to go much deeper into this issue mainly because I don't have the leisure at the moment. I've been aware that there has been dispute over the Baltics and the Soviet Union for some time now. While both sides of the argument have behaved rather badly at various points, I'd say the idea that the Baltic states weren't forcibly incorporated into the USSR against the will of the majority of their inhabitants in the 1940s is rather "fringe", not to say downright inaccurate. Of course, much of this debate has focussed on hairsplitting arguments about the precise meaning of words such as "occupation". I'd say this is just one of those areas that, by its nature, Wikipedia doesn't do particularly well. And, as I said before, unfortunately I don't really have the free time to go into this in more detail. --Folantin (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sad :(
 * Thank you for your counsel. 82.131.24.88 (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You say "both sides of the argument have behaved rather badly at various points"
 * What's this about? 82.131.24.88 (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There have been various wars, mostly between Estonian and Russian (or Russophone) editors, some of which have ended up at ArbCom and resulted in sanctions for one or two of the editors involved. --Folantin (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm interested. Can you give me the links? 82.131.24.88 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is the main one . There may be others. I haven't followed Baltic-Soviet stuff too closely. I usually deal with other areas of conflict. --Folantin (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is some saga! It will take weeks for me to read it all. 82.131.24.88 (talk) 17:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's complicated. Now you can see why I don't have the leisure to deal with it. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

eh?

 * An olive branch of peace!
 * I was just perusing DHMO's RfA, and noted that you linked to the GA nom (from just over a year ago) to Berber people. You made disparaging comments about the nominator (i.e., me). Wait! Nope! I'm not at all offended. Not here to attack you, nor push your buttons, nor insult your lineage, etc. My pulse rate is exactly the same as it was before reading your post. If anything, I'm a little amused (in a pleasant way).
 * You said that I lectured you. Sorry. I am trying.. usually.. to live by WP:DGAF. In fact, my strenuous Oppose to the Giggy/DHMO nom is the least DGAF I've been in a while, but... a little more is at stake. And there are complicating issues, which I won't go into here.
 * I do have one... mildly, very very very mildly negative remark. I mean it in a non-confrontational way: if you hold onto grudges this long, you'll worry yourself sick. Besides, the encyclopedia needs peace among its editors, whenever possible.
 * Uh no way would I nom that article today, in the shape it was in at that time. :-) I also don't think it was collusion. There was a comment by the reviewer (whose name doesn't ring a bell;  I don't think I have any lengthy relationship with him/her) about "fast-tracking" it. I think he/she said that because he/she liked it. That was a year ago. I do not claim to share that sentiment today.
 * I wish you well. I hope some day we can wash away the negative feelings. I don't mean that in a hippy-dippy way, but in a matter-of-fact one.
 * Best regards, the useless nominating idiot Ling.Nut (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I love Moreschi's link to the GA reviewer's comment, "Why didn't you tell me you were an admin?" I'm gonna share it with User:geometry guy. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "If you hold onto grudges this long, you'll worry yourself sick". I don't hold onto to grudges. My beef is with the GA process and the GA project. Earlier this year I worked on an article which my collaborator put up for GA. It was failed twice for the flimsiest of reasons despite matching the criteria. So after over a year of "reform" by a project with around 200 members, GA quality control is still totally random.


 * The only reason I noticed the Berbers GA is because I was planning to work on Berber history earlier this year. In other words, it was pure coincidence, rather than the result of pursuing some kind of grudge against you. I was very surprised the article had made Good Article status, given the complete lack of citations for statistics (which is one thing I believe must always be referenced without exception). I was even more surprised to see who had nominated it, less than a month after the debate over the Agrippina GA. As I say, quality control appears to be non-existent at GA. If I'm to assume good faith, I'd have to put this down to incompetence rather than corruption but there are one or two cases (including the notorious example at the current RfA) where the latter seems at least plausible. --Folantin (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Typically it is incompetence. Highly atypically, it may be corruption. What is to be done? You can be intolerant of others' shortcomings, or you can help others overcome the same. You can slash-n-burn GA, or you can improve it. I would choose the latter, assuming I continue to contribute to it. I have been advocating a training program for GA reviewers for a long, long time. What a huge service that would be to them, and to the community! Alas, the zeitgeist has not yet caught up with my brilliance. :/ Anyhow, if you are still bitter about Agrippina, my comments, etc etc then I do apologize. But I also suggest... a gentler road than the slash-n-burn option. Best regards, Ling.Nut (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "if you are still bitter about Agrippina". This is why I find talking to you (and many other GA reviewers) a waste of time. You dismiss criticism by "psychologising" it or regarding it as a personal attack. I simply find it inconsistent that you nominated a deeply flawed article like Berbers for GA shortly after making a statement like this:"I wanna say publicly, to the world at large, and for the record: the bigshots at Wikipedia are constantly making statements about the need to improve citation. That includes the apparently revered Jim Wales (who I think is just another techie guy, but that's another story). I would like to say, for the record, that there is a shift in the culture at GA taking place, and citations are receiving more emphasis. We are simply taking GA more seriously than others may perceive is necessary. And I don't wanna sound... snooty or whatever... but I can only think that this is a good thing. I know it distresses people. I apologize. But we want a GA to be somewhat less than an FA but much, much more than a userbox. I am aiming for GAs to be roughly 80% of an FA; but that's my personal goal. Others are more strict than I am; still other are less so."But of course, this is my own personal bitterness speaking rather than any wider concern for the good of the encyclopaedia.
 * As for GA, I'd simply abolish it and concentrate on reforming the FA process. --Folantin (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Le postillon de Longjumeau
Hi. My understanding is that the 'g' spelling is a variant used in English-speaking countries. Grove give 'Le postillon de Lonjumeau' ('The Coachman of Longjumeau'). -- Klein zach  10:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You can move it back (if that's possible). So long as there's a redirect, I don't mind.--Folantin (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Done. -- Klein zach  13:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Well, the term is awfully ambiguous. When a nationalist is merely somebody advocating the idea of a nation state, which is not at all unsound (if it is going to be implemented without ethnic cleansing), such nationalists are rarely problematic. After all, many problems with former Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union stem exactly from the fact that neither they nor most of their constituent republics were nation states.

What is dangerous is a blend of collectivism and supremacism often associated with the term nationalism (and characteristic of fascism, religious fundamentalism and other similar ideologies as well). Such a doctrine of nationalism, a belief in the superiority of a nation over the individuals comprising it (important and often overlooked feature) and over other nations, tends to coexist with imperialism, the exact opposite of the nationalism in the first sense.

E.g. in Russia the first kind of nationalist would be somebody insisting that the Chechen Republic should be left to itself and kept as independent as possible (and in this sense I am such a person, though I have never identified myself as a nationalist), while the second kind of nationalist would advocate its complete subordination to Russia, Russification, if not levelling to the ground. Dbachmann's list and some other similar essays strike me as something that mixes up the things, especially as to Spain. Colchicum (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sailing to Byzantium, in leg irons
Hi Folantin -- do you know if this editor is the same one I just blocked for legal threats? (btw, he's making more threats on his talk page, and now is back with new IPs on the Byzantium article: I sense either range-block or article protection may be in the works.)  Antandrus  (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury
Please vote or comment on the FA nomination of Trial by Jury here: Featured article candidates/Trial by Jury. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dragon of Wantley
Hello. I just saw your opera space and note that this opera does have a page. Oddly enough I went to a performance of this opera in Cambridge, directed by Peter Holman. I'm still trying to remember the English baroque opera I attended at the same time in the Naval Academy in Greenwich (usually off bounds, but a marvellous setting): Tamsin Greig, famous as Debbie Aldridge in The Archers, had one of the speaking parts. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please add it there if you like. You might also want to get in touch with User:Smerus, who has shown an interest in writing an article on this very opera within the past few weeks. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Hey thar
I just wanted to let you know I know how you feel. I got my nom for admin shot down by 1 user who who came back to inject the venom just a little bit more. And it seemed that no one was listening to me. Controversies on Wikipedia can suck because you can't just scream and yell - which makes it even more maddening! I'm posting this as much to help you as for me to vent on that... As I said before, the whole situation makes my brain hurt so I don't really "known" what's going on. I just thought you might want to hear that others have been though similar stuff. Good luck with whatever happens. mboverload @ 08:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just the usual old national POV-pushing fun. Any uninvolved editor who's stupid enough to wade in there and try and make it a bit more neutral (by using, like, books and academic stuff to reference facts) ends up incurring the wrath of some organised group of agenda-driven users and getting the "treatment". If they kick up enough fuss, they manage to scare most admins from intervening. As for Irpen, he's well known for this kind of thing. Here's an ArbCom "finding of fact" about him . --Folantin (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Folantin: warning
Folantin, your personal attacks on Irpen based on nationality are shocking. And right on the admin noticeboard..! And against a respectable, hard-working editor..! I did a double-take when I saw your "It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back." Your behaviour is completely unacceptable. Just take a deep breath and stop it. Now. Not one more xenophobic attack. I mean it. I have copied this post from WP:ANI. I mean it there, too. Bishonen | talk 09:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC).
 * And that would be blatant admin abuse. --Folantin (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I note that you are now posting useful diffs rather than mere anger on ANI. Good to see, thank you. I do understand that Wikipedia is frustrating sometimes. Bishonen | talk 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC).

I posted useful differences at the very start of the thread concerning blatant violations of core policies WP:RS and WP:V. Where were you and your fellow admins then? Of course I'm "angry". You only turned up when your friend Irpen was "attacked". And if you think POV-pushing on Wikipedia doesn't divide along predictable ethnic chauvinist lines then I don't know what to say. --Folantin (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Bishonen is an extremely sane woman and a priceless asset in cases of bullshit-mongery like this one. She chimed in at the wrong moment in this case, but you can be sure she'll listen to reason as she is groking the context. You can count on Bishonen to be capable of actually groking the context, unlike much of our IRC adminry. dab (𒁳) 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've got a lot of respect for Bishonen. It's a shame I can't share her high opinion of Irpen but she's right about so many other things. --Folantin (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An apology to whom it may concern
"It's Irpen. There's no Russian editor he won't back". I'll certainly apologise for saying that. It's an insult to some of our good faith Russian editors who aren't here to push a POV. The apology to good faith Russian editors still stands - but I withdraw my attack on Irpen. --Folantin (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Folantin. I have seen your discussion at several talk pages, and I especially like this: "If I find nationalist hoaxing on Wikipedia I will try to bust it, whether it's Russian, Chechen, Ukrainian, Albanian or whatever". Great attitude. Please let me know if you have any difficulties with doing that, especially in Russian sector.Biophys (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ..summarising in that last clause exactly what's wrong with EE. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I lost my temper out of sheer frustration which only played into the hands of some of our problem editors. Clearly I must be a Russophobe otherwise why would I try to save articles on Russian poets from deletion ? There's a clue on my user page as to which of our admins has a - let's say - "variable" attitude to cracking down on xenophobia on Wikipedia. Another user in question has never forgiven me for the "arrogance" of pointing out that a History of Russia Featured Article with three paragraphs on post-Soviet Russia and zero mention of the wars in Chechnya is somewhat inadequate. --Folantin (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, our ever-growing admin community is turning into a strange beast with rather mixed performance. It is well known that humans can only act intelligently in small numbers. You did lose your nerve, as can happen to anyone facing the sort of problems we get in the nationalism department, and you did well to apologize. Your analysis that losing nerve plays into the hands of the troublemakers is also correct: our best defense is in remaining aloof and emotionally detached. Keep in mind that the system can well absorb a few rotten eggs even among the admin population, we only need the inert system that is the "Wikipedia community" to remain roughly aware of the core project goals, and everything will still tend to move in the right direction. Systemic bias resulting from the de-facto composition of our admin population is very difficult to address. This is the case especially in ethnic topics, which suffer from our large proportion of US editors, since USians tend to have a somewhat pathological relation to the notion of ethnicity or race, either affected by guilt-laden paranoia (white USians), or by out-of-touch bullshit mythologies or conspiracy theories (the various non-white Hyphenated-American diasporas). It is very difficult to convey to either group what passes as "noramalcy" beyond the sociological singularity that is US society. dab (𒁳) 11:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm probably overextended. I've edited Vainakh (Chechen-Ingush), Ossetian, Hungarian, "Illyrian", Iranian, Graeco-Macedonian, Armenian, Ukrainian, Georgian, Russian, French/Breton, Dutch/Flemish, Chinese, Uruguayan, German, Polish, Italian, Slovenian, Byzantine, "Syrian" etc. history pages with all the attendant edit-warring hassles. My mistake was getting involved in the ANI thread to start with. KK initiated it with ridiculous claims of meat puppetry and I got drawn in. I don't generally go "grassing up" users there myself for things like civility and 3RR unless they're extremely disruptive. As we've seen, it's pointless talking about policies like WP:RS and WP:V there, because most admins don't understand them or won't enforce them. The "systemic bias" of the admin corps probably down to age as well - last week we narrowly avoided having a 12-year old pass RfA. --Folantin (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please accept my apologies too. Peace Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well Folantin, following User:Hillock65's advice about WP:STICK and the string of apologies bouncing back and forth, I feel I am obliged to also add mine here. --Kuban Cossack 12:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We have still the disagreement on the article. Now I have been editing a version in here and right now it is a work-in-progress, but I should finish it by the end of the week. I still want the dispute solved, via a consensus. Now for the time being, I suggest we do a version compare write our individual versions of what that section should look like. Then identify issues which we agree on, likewise identify those we disagree on and if we are unable to find a neutral compromise, go through the standard WP:DR with third opinions, medcabs and so forth if necessary. If you feel that this detente is premature then fine, the article is locked for a month we have time to let scars heal. Otherwise let me know if you are prepared to move forward with this. Regards. --Kuban Cossack 12:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "the article is locked for a month". Good, because I really want to take a break from it for the time being. --Folantin (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Outrageous behavior on Ukrainian Insurgent Army
If you think the National Bolshevik editors are bad, you should see what I have been dealing with at a different article with Jo0doe (talk). So far nobody is blocking this guy's behavior. Here are examples from the talk pages: and. This guy has taken up hours and hours of mine and other editors' time in a one-man crusade to screw up the article. He has been reverting not only by UKrainians but by Kuban kazak too, whom you have accused of similar one-sidedness but whom I have found to be generally quite reasonable.Faustian (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Spanner0jjm
I've given the kid a Silly and a uw-vandalism4im set of warnings. I won't hesitate to block immediately upon the text vandalism. Thanks for the heads-up! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Buzz
"I get a buzz if one of my articles is translated into a foreign language" ... shh, don't let anyone know the secret! But yes, seriously, this is one of the best things that happens. At least two-thirds of the time one of those little "interwikis" appears on an article I wrote, someone has translated it. Feels good, doesn't it? It's one of the things that keeps me here, too, in spite of the paralysing bureaucracy which plagues many parts of our project. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "It's one of the things that keeps me here..." Yep, that and the small group of really decent, intelligent editors still around. Sublimely crazy incidents like this also offer the occasional light relief from the usual humdrum vandalism, trolling, POV-pushing and process wonkery. --Folantin (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL! I've never see that before, and it's side-splitting, hilarious reading.  Some of those bugs fluttering about our porch-lamp have frayed wings indeed.
 * I'm reminded of some stuff I saw for sale about ten years ago, on a new-agey web site: an Earth Healing Essence, blessed by moonlit lesbian dolphins or whatnot, which you were to pour on the earth over earthquake faults.  (I think it came in a very small bottle, and resembled water in general appearance.)  It would heal the earth's energy field, realign chakras, mend tectonic rifts, and stop earthquakes; failure to use it has resulted in immense destruction and loss of life.  Maybe it could mend national rifts as well.  Perhaps we need an article on it?  Antandrus  (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

log in, log out
Thanks for leaving they message on my talk page. I indicated the discussion log in, log out had on my talk page about Johanna Nichols.

You will be pleased to hear that I did not cough in Belshazzar which I heard twice. It was sublime. The duet in the last act between Cyrus and Nicritas brought tears to my eyes each time. Rosemary Joshua and Bejun Mehta were accompanied by solo muted strings and - a touch of genius on René Jacobs part - two tenor recorders. It reminded me of his Giulio Cesare, one of my favourite CD's. Everything was superb, the choir, the orchestra (with a brilliant varied and responsive continuo section), all the other soloists and the staging. I might go again tonight for the last night of the festival, when I think it's being transmitted live on Arte. It was also recorded on Monday (for Harmonia Mundi? - I'll have to ask my contacts there). Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ralph... Buick
On our friend Ralph, the esearch is done. All I can say is "wow." That present article will be deleted to erase the IP's contrib. It's too insulting. James Ralph gets 3 pp in nDNB, and with cause. He might be the first American with a play produced in England. He was a Defoe-status political fighter, and he set the "received wisdom" version of history. He's way big. The Franklin connection is the least interesting element of his life. The man is a cad sometimes, a zealot sometimes, a cynic sometimes, and a sage sometimes. His most significant connection is with Fielding, but he's tied to practically everyone. Watch that space, therefore, as I'll write it tomorrow. Geogre (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "Look! Look!  Look upon her now!"  (it's from King Lear's Jets).  Geogre (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

L'enfance du Christ
I’m the one who tried to delete the line about Berlioz being an atheist: "It's worth noting that Berlioz himself was by no means a religious believer, though he was a great admirer of Catholic liturgical music." I trust your edit, I’m just genuinely curious about this. The impression I had from reading his Memoirs was that Berlioz was a sincere believer, but was disgusted with how poorly religious feeling was conveyed in the preeminent church music of the time (organ gigues, fugues on a single word, etc.), so it seemed to me the sentence was backwards. On the other hand, I’m aware that not everything the great man put to paper can be treated as veritable fact. Could you please explain this? Telos (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get back to you when I have more time. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Berlioz writes in the first chapter of his Memoirs: "I hardly need to say that I was brought up in the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome. This delightful religion (it no longer burns anyone) made me happy for a full seven years; we have long ceased to be on speaking terms, but I still retain extremely fond memories of that faith. I have in fact such a soft spot for it that, had it been my misfortune to be born during one of those schisms that arose under the heavy hand of Luther or Calvin, I would surely have seized the first moment of poetic intuition to renounce it solemnly and embrace with all my heart the beautiful Roman Catholic faith" . So, he's looking back on his first experience of music and he's grateful he was brought up a Catholic not a Protestant, but as an adult he's no longer a believer. There are other passages in David Cairns's biography which back this up (e.g. Vol 1 p.100 and p.498: "he read the materialist philosophers and physiologists whose works were in his father's library - Locke, Cabanis, Gall - and found confirmation of his own disbelief in a personal god, though the authors 'can't bring themselves to follow their principles through to the end, for fear of opinion '". He "was disgusted with how poorly religious feeling was conveyed in the preeminent church music of the time". He was certainly disgusted with the religious music he heard in Italy and aimed to do better with his own. --Folantin (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. Telos (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Kathleen Battle
I would appriciate your input at the current discussion currently going on at this article's talk page. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look though this is not my area. --Folantin (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Opera banner
Hi. I wonder if you could possibly add the Opera banner to your stubs? That would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Klein zach  23:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I got confused by the new "assessment" tags (they still confuse me). But if the old tag is still there then I'll add that. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The main thing is that the code is now . Stub is  and start is  . Thanks. -- Klein  zach  22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why just "stub" and "start"? Surely it would have been more logical to have an "unassessed" option. --Folantin (talk) 07:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Unassessed' is in fact a cat. The code would be . I know your opinions on assessments and I think it would be a good idea if you took a part in the discussions. -- Klein  zach  11:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just out of interest...
Thanks for letting me know. Yes indeed I remember. . . Quite a saga! -- Klein zach  11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Good post
This post was astute. It's funny that the Wikipedia Review crowd criticize that. then it's funny that it is exactly what they do. ANI is taken up with things like SirFozzie's "I don't like their jokes" and ATren's continued stalking. I also like the continued WP:KETTLE discussions, including Lar telling me to stop commenting on my own Talk page because it inflames the situation, as he continues to inflame the situation by commenting on my talk page. Or SirFozzie telling me I bear my fangs, as he talks out of the other side of his mouth telling me not to pour gasoline on the fire when I tell ATren there is no reason to do his usual insert-and-argue routine. It's no surprise that some of the more prolific generators of content become their targets. -- David  Shankbone  15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if more admins concentrated on enforcing WP:ENC (the only policies which really matter ultimately) instead of unequally enforcing WP:CIVILITY and Assume Good Faith then this place would be a whole lot better. WP:UCS is pretty important too though you won't see much evidence of this at ANI recently, which is why I never visit that board any more if I can help it. Of course, we all know some admins are really here for the social climbing. The irony of a thread entitled "Stalking by Folantin" by a persistent harrasser and the subsequent assumption of bad faith by some admins is pretty funny actually. --Folantin (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are some decent admins. Look at Folantin (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Their gaming doesn't work if we follow the letter of the rules, and ignore why they were created.  Did I ever show you the e-mail Greta sent me as "Jayne Johnston" that "she" was sending around to websites that talked about how we allow "transexuals" and "homosexuals" and "other sexual predators" to edit anonymously on Wikipedia (the point was made in reference to the danger Wikipedia poses to children)?  -- David  Shankbone  16:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I remember that and I also remember "Greta" complaining about what was missing round here: "if WP is not censored and there is a need for this kind of article, there should be an article about this specific kind of bondage." Won't somebody please think of the children?! LOL --Folantin (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess we should start referring to stalkers as, "Can you pretty please stop stalking David Shankbone? Pretty please? If you don't, I'm going to pen out a strongly worded letter condemning your actions." Just like the United Nations. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  16:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't realise Irony* was now an Olympic sport because judging by that ANI thread some of our admins are going for gold. (*Also known as Hypocrisy in some countries - you know, like the soccer/football distinction). --Folantin (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Damsel in distress? -- David  Shankbone  17:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't possibly comment. --Folantin (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...
...I actually was involved in making the block. Does that give me the right to an opinion? Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Which one, "Greta" or the neo-fascist? --Folantin (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Pendantic"
Do you think that a certain someone has a diaper fetish? See here. Note that the title of that onesie is interchangeable with a certain somebody. -- David  Shankbone  18:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)