User talk:Peterstrempel/Mar2011



Peter S Strempel's talk page

Please don't split conversations: if we start here, stay here, if we start somewhere else, let's keep it there. It's too busy a place to keep tabs on everything, everywhere, all the time. You can always post a talkback notice here to let me know of updates elsewhere.

Chinatown
Thanks for working on the "Chinatown", but it makes some specific assertions that aren't in the movie itself, such as "After opening credits evoking the old RKO Radio Pictures style,..." and "...who slashes Gittes' nose with a flickknife in the now famous 'kitte-kat' scene." Also, the summary sometimes uses informal language or contractions. Could you revise it please?  Will Beback   talk    03:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your prompt reply. I hate writing plot summaries, so I doubly appreciate your effort. However I don't think your summary was good as what was there already. Maybe it'd be better to start with what was there, and just remove some of the excessive detail?   Will Beback    talk    04:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Brezhnev Era
Thanks, thanks a lot. That article needs a copyedit badly. You could say many things about me but grammar is not my strength here on wiki. Again thanks, and hope you find the article interesting. --TIAYN (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * oh yeah, remember, everything in the lead is referenced in the body of the article. According to WP policy we should try to avoid referencing the lead so again, there is no reason to do so, and if you you can use the referenced used in the body of the article. Again, best wishes. --TIAYN (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about tags in the draft at present. They are mostly reminders to myself that I need to check for consistency of edits with what follows and went before in the edited version. When I have a draft that I think is grammatically sound, I'll drop you a line. Regards --Peter S Strempel (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay.. I prefer British. --TIAYN (talk) 05:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why have you removed important, and perfectly valid information from the sandbox version of the History of the Soviet Union page? Information such as this; "Podgorny's fall was not seen as the end of the collective leadership, and Suslov continued to write several ideological documents about it. In 1978, one year after Podgorny's retirement, Suslov made several notable references to the collective leadership. It was around this time that Andrei Kirilenko's power and prestige within the Soviet leadership started to wane.[11] As Brezhnev's health worsened, the collective leadership took an even more important role in everyday decision-making. Brezhnev's death did not alter the balance the power in any radical fashion, and Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko were obliged by protocol to rule the country in the same fashion as Brezhnev left it.[12]" has been removed, why? It's perfectly valid since many believed that Podgorny's downfall was the end of the collective leadership.... Second, many of you're rewording are inaccurate, such as Kosygin was replaced as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet which you have written, and I've fixed.... While I like you're copyediting, you, for some weird reason, are removing perfectly valid information. Why is, for example, information regarding the Soviet Union's much weaker military infrastructure been removed? But this is only minor to the changes you've done to the collectivity of leadership section ..... --TIAYN (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

As I stated at the outset, I would notify you once I had a draft version of the edited piece ready. By jumping into the draft and making changes you have cost me maybe an hour's worth of editing (by creating a conflict between your edits and my unsaved ones). This is a draft, and as such not really representative of anything until I say it's finished. It is also in a sandbox under my personal user page, hardly reflecting anything other than my own work in progress (your original page is completely untouched by me). If I cannot edit here at my own pace, without being challenged about every keystroke, I'd rather not be involved in the copy-editing process for this article. Regards Peter S Strempel |  Page | Talk 17:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the only edit's I've done was including one para which you removed, and removing false and inaccurate information which you added. I wasn't clear of you're intent, and yes, I can wait for the finishing product, but as you've noticed, I'm protective, very protective of my work, and yes, I know, It's a problem. --TIAYN (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * TIAYN, I know you are eager, but you really shouldn't edit someone else's personal workspace, especially when he has told you that he is doing a draft and will inform you when it's ready. You should have dropped a note on his talk page instead. I have advised Peter to work directly on the actual article, so that any edit conflicts are minimized, and that any edits there can be clearly credited to him. Peter, don't be disheartened. I know you spent a lot of time doing this and it appears to have been wasted. What's done is done. Let's try to work directly on the article and get it into better shape. BTW, I have added a British English tag for you guys. – SMasters (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

05:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Duel
Hey there. Didn't notice you had said you were going to tackle the Russia section there. I took a wee bit of umbrage at a Russian editor's insistence to write about the "looser" of a duel and so decided to re-do that part of the section which is to do with single combat. Unfortunately, there are no references (my Russian is useful in the same way a few ancient bricks on a field are a house, so I probably won't be able to supply any myself) and I suspect quite a bit of its content is more to do with what Russian kids learn at school than what modern historians would say, but I hope I did manage to improve that part at least language-wise. However, as I'm no native speaker, it would probably be best if you had a quick look at it and smoothed out the most horrendous grammar / lexicon issues. I did not look at the part that is concerned with proper duelling. Best, Trigaranus (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The English in the article is a bit tortured, which is how I got involved in the first place, but I noticed a myriad other problems, including the premise of duelling being essentially a Western practice, and the absence of citations to reference the many assertions. I haven't yet conceptualised how to overcome the Western paradigm framework, ergo, not much progress.  My efforts are fallow in a draft page off my user page for the time being, so I have little stake in what happens to the live page right now and I wouldn't blame anyone for putting bad English out of its misery.  Thanks for your heads up, though.  --Peter S Strempel (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to be bold, my advice would be to entirely split the article into two separate ones. I'll put it up on the talk page in a sec, hang on. Trigaranus (talk) 08:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My thinking was along slightly different lines, splitting off Western duels from all others as a discrete page, but dealing with the differences between (ritualised) duels, single combat, and judicial duelling/combat.
 * Regards Peter S Strempel |  Page | Talk 15:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Patrick (Paddy) O'Brien
Draft page added to my user section to create what I think will only be a stub page. The reason is a red link to nowhere from the WA Inc page, the fact that O'Brien was somewhat controversial during the 1980s, and he was published academic of many years' standing. Peter S Strempel Page &#124; Talk 11:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC) (21:02 local)
 * Hi. Can you please make this page Patrick O'Brien, author to match my dab. I've made the necessary changes in the article, which (from my own carelessness) had a couple of variants. We will, of course, identify him in his intro as Patrick John (Paddy) O'Brien (12 January 1937, Wodonga, Victoria–1998, Perth, Western Australia). . . I don't have the exact date of his death to hand.

Also, I've added him, Webb and Parker to a list of WA refs needed. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can do, but I need a bit of time. I'm heavily engaged in a Soviet history discussion right now.  Probably get to it tomorrow.  My sources on O'Brien are pretty thin right now.  Good on you for adding Parker to the list.  What's your interest here?  You might have to help me a little bit because I met both O'Brien and Parker in the 1980s (neither were acquaintances, much less associates or friends); I don't know how far I have to distance myself from either topic.


 * Peter S Strempel Page &#124; Talk 11:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No hurry at all. I had some friendly dealings with Paddy through the 70s-90s on shared/overlapping political interests and his books from 1977. I campaigned on several occasions with him, Martyn Webb and Bevan Lawrence, eg, on the Australia Card. I met Parker only once or twice on professional issues but had some major set-tos with his staffers over a couple of issues I was opposing—the PICL plant at Kwinana and the silicon smelter at Eaton (which the protesters forced to be moved to Kemerton). A long time ago. It's necessary to distance oneself from undue bias, but not from the topic. In those days everyone had to be either for or against WA Inc, eh?! Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My own dealings with Patrick O'Brien would best be described as 'distant; I'm pretty sure he thought me a lefty dirtbag when I fronted him about WA Inc in my final undergraduate years at Curtin Uni. My questions to him about WA Inc might have convinced him I wasn't a lefty after all, despite all appearances: I remember wearing a red beret, four ear-rings, neckerchief, loud paisley (Hoodoo Gurus) shirt with black Levis and black ripple-soled desert boots - what a picture eh?  It was cold day in 1988 if memory serves me, on the UWA campus.  My purpose was to get some quotes I could use in my final journalism subject for the WA Inc research project I was undertaking (major course marks for that one).  Paddy deigned to give me what I was after, but he seemed less than impressed, or maybe he was just hung over, like the rest of us that year.


 * My encounters with David Parker were even less 'cordial'. I fronted him once for Curtin Uni's Radio 6NR (a radio journalism prac) and getting a vacant stare from him about my question on donations to the ALP.  I think that might have been 1986 (my memory ain't as good as once it was and all my records, along with most of my possessions, were lost to me recently; I live in Brisbane these days.  That year or the following I met him again in Fremantle and attempted to question him about Laurie Connell.  My recollection was of massive Elvis Costello glasses, squinting eyes, a mop of unruly curly hair, a suit that looked slept in, and the demeanour of a fugitive.  I didn't get any quotes worth printing.  Nevertheless, ain't it just peachy that all mention of him has just disappeared off the face of the Earth.  A bit of revisionism from the comrades?


 * Peter S Strempel Page &#124; Talk 05:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Just to notice that User:M.V.E.i. and his talking opponent at YuA page were banned. There is no need do discuss anything with them. You are very welcome to improve this article.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Good work!

 * It is of course gratifying to be recognised in this immense community, and positively delightful to be praised. I hope that I can live up to the compliment.
 * Peter S Strempel Page &#124; Talk 10:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration committee
Posted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee/2011_appointments

Wow! If your intent for this page was to scare the living daylights out of Wikipedia contributors, you have succeeded. Have any of you got any idea how much like a KGB interrogation this stuff sounds? [redact revdel doubleplus ungood] Keep up the good work, comrades.[OS edit newspeak]

A couple of days ago I made some comments at http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update on the things that might drive away or attract new contributors. This page is an example of something that would make me pull up my doona to my eyes at night, nervously glancing at my PC in the corner lest it suddenly wake from standby to display the message: 'You have been de-Wickied. Report to the central committee at once for confession of your anti-Wiki activities and de-briefing.' >[revdel redact quadrupleplus ungood]make me sleep safely at night. Your activities make me feel safe from decadent influences.[OS edit doupleplus good]

I was particularly taken with an exchange about the personal acquaintances of one candidate for this black-ops group which ended with a suggestion that a searching question was satisfactorily answered because the questioner only wanted to see the 'truthfulness' of the answer! Sounds like the comrade already KNEW. BigWiki is watching you. [revdel redact ungood][OS userfile + addendum]

The exchange reminded me of reported proceedings in the Australian Commonwealth Parliament in 1955, when Labor leader Doc Evatt, after having sent a letter to Soviet foreign minister Molotov asking whether the USSR was spying on Australia, read out the reply in Parliament: Molotov denied espionage. Strangely enough this reply from Mother Russia evoked prolonged laughter in the House. [revdel redact doupleplus ungood + newspeak/history/1955]

Yours may be serious business, but you might want to consider putting a slightly more human face on it. We are all still human beings, right? Not just Wikinyms? The stiff, bureaucratic formality of the whole things is as scary as the shadowy powers you allude to. The almost standard use of acronyms everywhere makes the discussion almost impenetrable - except to you, of course. Is that the way you want it? When do the black-ops archives emerge from secrecy blackout? [revdel redact + useragentstring + addendum]I am heartily gladdened by your tireless work to protect the integrity of our consciences and souls.[OS edit quintupleplus good]

Do they let you guys carry guns? Sorry. Didn't mean that, comrades, honest. I'll just go change my identity, pack my bags and flee to somewhere no one knows about Wikipedia. Urr ... there doesn't seem to be anywhere on the planet that fits this description. [OS redact + userfile + useragentstring terminate xtrprej]

Congratulations, comrades. Keep up the good work.[OS edit tripleplus good]

Peter S Strempel Page &#124; Talk 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony Abbott
Hi, the 1RR/day restricton was imposed by consensus reached at WP:AN - archived discussion here - due to edit warring. The issue is currently being discussed at WP:AN. If general consensus is that the restriction may be removed then I'm happy to support that. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't question the admin decision about edit warring (those wars are a pain in the arse), but my question was really about why the ban was still in place so long after the events that sparked it. I don't quite understand the rules governing longevity of such decisions, or the rules governing undoing them. My assumption here is that a default position would be: no restrictions on an article.


 * As a separate question, because I would like to understand the issues surrounding my comment above, if all that's preventing restrictions being lifted is that someone asks, do I, as a non-admin, have reasonable (and polite ) rights to request it in the admin forum?


 * Thanks for your time addressing this inquiry. Regards  Peter Strempel  &#124;  Talk    05:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course you have the right to request a restriction be removed from an article. WP:RFPP is for protection and unprotection, WP:AN would bt the correct venue for other restrictions, such as 1RR. AN is for issues that concerning admins, but not necessarily needing action to be taken against an editor, which is what WP:ANI is for. In this case, AN is the appropriate venue because it takes an admin to amend an edit notice, and the original restriction was imposed as a result of a discussion on AN. The reason that the restriction is still in place is probably because it got forgotten after it was imposed. Mjroots (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The 1RR restriction has been lifted. I'm sure you weren't thinking of edit warring, but 3RR still applies. Mjroots (talk) 18:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, edit wars are far too much horseshit for my tastes. It's much more simple to test the waters in the talk pages and to walk away for a while if someone wants to get feisty.  Three reverts in rapid succession sounds to me like plenty of cause to be concerned about petulance.  Thanks for all your time on this.  Regards  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   02:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: advice
Keep in mind I'm a relatively new arb, so my knowledge in this "old" matters is not as sharp as it could be. Looking at the talk page, however, I'd have to agree with your assessment. Local consensus isn't going to trump an ArbCom ruling on matters of principle and findings of fact; otherwise there would be no reason for ArbCom as a last-ditch venue for dispute resolution. I'd expect the case would have to be revisited by a request for clarification, etc. if those parties wanted a different answer, although I highly doubt this committee would change much. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Incivility
This edit, in my opinion, violates Civility. Habitual violations make Wikipedia an unpleasant environment for both you and others. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Mr Bauder, I tell ya, if you think I can't use the word shit without having my wrists slapped, there will be people who might agree with you. But if you really think you can re-open or re-invoke the most contentious debate in history to put crap on the astrology page, you are mistaken. No one cares what you or I actually think about it. References. Citations. Reliable sources. Read the help pages some more until you understand what Wikipedia is and what it isn't. I repeat, if I was a nice guy I'd just spoon-feed you the links, but I'm not nice at all. I'm interested only in sources, references, citations. And I think you're not for real, otherwise you'd have spent some time looking into the astrology debate before trying to re-invent the wheel.

This place is not debate class, is not your personal ego-wanking venue, is not a place to seek self-validation. This place, sir, is an encyclopedia. If you come here to play kindergarten games, someone will move you aside. Today it was me. If you don't like the robust discussion that comes with being serious about things, don't play in this sand-box.

Threaten me all you like. I'll be here loooong after you've lost interest.

Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   20:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you may develop a habit of solving problems through intimidation rather than discussion and diminish the usefulness of the site for everyone, including yourself. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think I've been intimidating you are most welcome to avail yourself of all available remedies. But if you're just using notions of procedural fairness to invalidate my insistence on rationality and WP rules, the best you can hope to achieve is to remove me from the debate. If that is  really your aim, this isn't the place for the kind of debate you have in mind.  As an aside, if you think my verbiage is too robust, I'll agree with you; it is an accurate reflection of just how much I don't care what people think if they have no citations.  Regards  Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   22:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Quinn Fabray
Hey. Just in case you didn't put it on your watchlist, I replied to your questions on Quinn Fabray's talk page. I really appreciate you taking a look at it. ;) HorrorFan121 (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I covered all the questions you had on the talk page. HorrorFan121 (talk) 01:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry
A discussion is in progress, plz visit.LanceBarber (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * GW had started this discussion but did not indicate a link or mentioned it was in Spaceflight. I assume he wanted to have the dicussion on WPRocketry Talk. I just notified a dozen+ folks for discussion. Great!LanceBarber (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just found it buried deep on Spaceflight page, not clearly identified, I perused it briefly before sending out my two cents.