User talk:Smeat75

Welcome!

Hello, Smeat75, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Lindert (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

New Testament Scholars are Unreliable and biased
Regarding Christ Myth Theory - this article has the Papal Seal of Approval - an article about the Christ Myth Theory that is obviously written by believers in the New Testament - the New Testament that is steeped in mythology and made-up history. The Christ Myth theory article is awful. "Oh yes, let's write a critical article about the historical Christ, and while we're at it, let's endorse the Word of God found in the Holy Bible and discredit the false disbelievers". Dickie birdie (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for taking the time out of your day to come to my talk page and tell me that. As this is my talk page, I can go into a little rant. You and a lot of others seem to think that anybody who insists that it is the mainstream view that Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate is an undoubted historical fact is a frothing at the mouth Christian fundamentalist. That isn't why I think that, it is because I am a ROMAN PAGAN and I believe it because TACITUS says so!!!!! There is only ONE THING that we know FOR SURE about Jesus, which is that he was crucified, the historian from whom I learned almost everything I know about classical history, Michael Grant, says so and so does the greatest Roman historian, TACITUS. If he was crucified, he had to exist first, so he UNQUESTIONABLY did, it is just IGNORANT people who know NOTHING about Roman history who think anything else.
 * I feel so much better for getting that off my chest.Smeat75 (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * First, the "Annals" of Tacitus were first pronounced as fake when they first appeared during the 15th century - no ancient writer is aware of their existence. You can't say "Hey, here is a second century reference, or third century reference, or fourth century reference to the Annals by Tacitus". Secondly, relating to the crucifixion, which Christian of the first century mentions the name of Pontius Pilate? None of the early epistles found in the New Testament mention him within the context of the Crucifixion. You can't say the Gospels, because no Christian of the first century referred to the existence of the Gospels. The theory that the Gospels date from the first century is only that, only a theory and yet another example of New Testament scholarship bias." Dickie birdie (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That's what I said, ignorant people who know NOTHING about ROMAN HISTORY and ARROGANTLY imagine that they know better than the greatest classicist of the 20th century MICHAEL GRANT. Please do not continue this stupid argument on my talk page, I unfortunately waste too much time trying to keep the articles relating to Jesus and ROMAN HISTORY neutral and accurate I don't need to do the same thing on my talk page also.Smeat75 (talk) 12:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

ARC
Hello Smeat. By accident I more or less stumbled my way into discovering that I was recently mentioned somewhat indirectly in a recent ArbCom case. Although I don't think we've discussed any of the issues involved directly (not that I'd want to) I'm grateful that you clarified things and managed to do it all tactfully enough not to drag me into the discussion. Although like anyone else I sometimes get in disagreements, being able to keep myself uninvolved from some of the most toxic disputes on Wikipedia is a large part of what keeps me mentally able to continue editing here. Although I'm not glad that two editors are no longer here on Wikipedia, I'm glad that I didn't see the explosions till after they were already dealt with. Thank you for your tact. Alephb (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Buone Feste


May you have very Happy Holidays ...

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and beautiful music!

Best wishes and many thanks for all your work at Project Opera, Voceditenore (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

2019


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

a time for thanks and praise

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Christ myth theory cleanup
Hey smeat. I cleaned up the Richard Carrier page to my satisfaction (though more can be done), but I just came to realizing the fact that the Christ myth theory page is even more tedious and badly written. I've already started, though I would appreciate some help in cleaning up the article.Wallingfordtoday (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Good luck, it is very very contentious. I tend to pick a few areas in articles like that and the Carrier one, mostly on scholarly reception, and concentrate on those. I think you are quite new here, I hope you don't get burnt out by having to deal with people arguing with you, I quit WP for two years for that reason, but yes I am happy to try to help you.Smeat75 (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Chandos Anthems?
I learned something new today: that the name Chandos Anthems is common and wrong, because James Brydges became Duke of Chandos only after Handel left, and serious people call them Cannons Anthems of Anthems for Cannons. What should we do, article name, texts, referring to them, etc.? Usually, Wikipedia prefers common name over correct name, or we wouldn't have The Flying Dutchman (opera) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, "Chandos Anthems" is the common name. I think the way you have clarified the issue in the lead of the article is fine. Thanks for your work on the pieces.Smeat75 (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Found a few good sources today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Census of Quirinius
Hi there, I can't help but notice that the "Mention in the Gospel of Luke" offers a rather one-sided perspective. I am in no way trying to perform 'exegetical acrobatics' or to delete any arguments against the plausibility of conservative claims, but since there are arguments both in favour and against don't you think both sides could co-exist? I am just looking for a neutral, informative page. 92.109.57.20 (talk) 05:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please start a discussion on the article talk page if you want to discuss this so others can participate. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

In case you're interested
Talk:The_Bible_and_violence. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

L'Africaine
Re your restore of Template:Meyerbeer operas: I thought we lost this battle a couple of years ago, after the advent of Template:Infobox opera. --Robert.Allen (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I succeeded in keeping them for Handel and Meyerbeer and a few others and now some blankety black has decided to remove them all, I am so outraged. Smeat75 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I still like them, too, prefer them over those horizontal lists, inconveniently placed at the bottom of the page. --Robert.Allen (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Restore
I have a wish which is hopefully not too hard, - it's about Monteverdi. His operas articles were created by Brianboulton whom we miss miss miss. Could the discographies please do without the template that the operas don't have? The composer's image is fine for the two late ones, - he's way too old for the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OK.Smeat75 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. The Vespers three times this year were quite an experience, especially singing! I promised (myself) to make that article an FA in memory of Brian, - any help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is such glorious music, must be wonderful to sing it!Smeat75 (talk) 23:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and we were permitted to sing much of the psalms, while a Dunedin Ensemble was OVPP (10), and in a recent Herreweghe performance, he let the choir only sing their Gloria Patri. Thanks be to our conductor ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * greetings on Handel's birthday, enjoy --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What a touching message! Thank you!Smeat75 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Today's Alte Liebe became especially meaningful after yesterday's funeral. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee,  C Thomas3   (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration
Hi Smeat. Long time no see. Read your comment at arbitration and can't help but wonder--you don't like the quote I used to sum up the biblical views on homosexuality in the ethics article--so how would you go about discussing it? I'm asking sincerely. It's difficult and I struggled with it. It's an unavoidable discussion in biblical ethics, don't you think? The one quote seemed better to me than all the Bible quotes which I thought was my other option. There wasn't dissenting opinion within the Bible or Christianity at the time either. I did just present it. I didn't offer an opinion on it. If you have a creative idea I would be honored if you would share with me a better way to discuss such a difficult subject as biblical views of homosexuality. I would like to find a neutral way to do so without offending--but there it is--offensive in its nature. What would you Do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I'm afraid I find that very hard to answer as I would be unlikely to edit on the subject. I know I wouldn't ever put in a quote like " Same-sex attraction spelled the estrangement of men and women at the very deepest level of their inmost desires" which is not even something that relates directly to a Biblical passage. Maybe the article The Bible and homosexuality could help, I haven't ever looked at it.Smeat75 (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw the quote as a summary--a shortcut--that prevented me from having to quote all the Bible verses directly which I didn't really want to do. That made it seem like an improvement to me.  Clearly you found it highly offensive, and since my goal was to lessen the offense, not increase it, I am floundering a bit. It's frustrating because it seems as if there is no non-offensive way to discuss this aspect of biblical ethics--and yet it's there and would have to be discussed at some point.  Anyway, thanx for answering.  I'm sorry about any former problems we had.  Please forgive my former defensiveness.  I was harassed for a couple of years before deteriorating into a crazy person.  I am sorry for any way that I hurt or offended you when I was going off the rails. I never actually thought anything but good of you directly or personally. I'll take a look at that article--though they would be compelled to quote all the scriptures--and maybe that's the right answer.  Anyway, thanx again.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Since I know there was some misunderstanding between us when I ran screaming from Wikipedia, I wanted to come here and let you know I posted something about it on [] in the second section down on harassment. I just wanted you to know it wasn't just me and it wasn't all in my head, it was real, but it was never about you.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. Smeat75 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Need an opinion on a draft
Hey,

Could you check this draft and tell me what do you think about it? Draft:Jasleen Kaur harassment controversy

Amazingcaptain (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talkpage.Smeat75 (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Presidency of Donald Trump, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lafayette Square and St. John's Episcopal Church ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Presidency_of_Donald_Trump?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to be warned about DS on American politics
Or about the 1rr rule, now that I have started editing articles about Trump's stunt outside St John's Episcopal Church. I know, I know. Smeat75 (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

GroveOnline
I was sad to read your posting to WP:ANI at 15:02, 3 July 2020 (diff). It is not the intention of anyone who has been working on the template to make life difficult for anyone else. The idea is to make it easier.

If "doi" means nothing to you that is fine (it didn't for me until recently), but it means something to people who have recently been studying and need to cite an online journal. All it represents is a garanteed permanent way to link to an article on the net, because ordinary urls can change at any time.

I have logged into Grove Music online and looked up Traviata, La (‘The Fallen Woman’) by Roger Parker. The url is: https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.O005794 in addition it says: Published in print: 01 December 1992 Published online: 2002

I have edited the Wikipedia article La traviata to include this information in the GroveOnline template (Revision as of 16:39, 3 July 2020) to let you see how you can augment the GroveOnline template to include links to the Grove article.

If you include the publication date of the Grove article then there is no need to include "access-date" (which is the date you accessed the article), but if you do include the "access-date" and there is a url parameter in the templaöte no red warnin g will appear. However "access-date" is not a subsitute for the "date" within the article as it is the true publication date.

If you do not want to include the first publication date (assigned to the "orig-year" parameter) then don't include it. I think a nice to have, but it is no where near as important as "date".

I hope this is of some help. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message and advice. Smeat75 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Royal family
Because i know them all and in that template all members of royal family. Because they don't have article doesn't mean that they don't exists. I removed HRH but rest of template i return. Snake bgd 21:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We as WP editors are all anonymous, we don't know who each other are. "I can vouch that these people exist even though they are not sourced because I know them personally" is not a way to WP:VERIFY information - "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." Having unlinked entries in a navbox is a direct violation of WP:EXISTING. However, I don't feel like fighting about it at the moment.Smeat75 (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Deposed ruling families
Queen Victoria and her first born Victoria,  Princess Royal, always used to refer to various royal  positions. They were not just "titles ", they were jobs, the holders had to do stuff , no matter how minor, like maybe open a hospital or go to a garden party once a year. Germany and Austria abolished the jobs so the titles that went with the jobs NO LONGER EXIST. I am not anti royal, I think it's quite a pretty and harmless tradition on the whole,  I am anti delusional monarchist fantasies. How nice to have this talk page where I can vent. Smeat75 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I am amazed and gratified to see that  things have really changed  since I tried to deal with this issue years ago. Lots of editors now agreeing that descendants of deposed ruling houses do not keep their titles through all eternity! Thanks everyone!Smeat75 (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't like arguing and conflicts
Which makes me wonder why I'm here. Smeat75 (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Why I edited WP
This has become the site everyone turns to all over the world for information. I would never have created such a thing, but there we are, it is reality. I feel my time here is about up and I am going to be kicked off because I just won't accept the composer templates being deleted. I suppose all my work on the Handel articles which were TERRRIBLE, a DISGRACE, until I wrote or re-wrote them, is not going to be reverted. Imagine thousands of people all over the world turning to this site to help their enjoyment of the Handel opera or oratorio they were attending and it told them nothing useful. That's they way they were, they are better now because I did a lot of work of them but I don't feel this is at all appreciated or recognized here, although it has been elsewhere. I also created lots of articles about opera singers, new and old, including Anita Rachvelishvili, Michael Spyres, Ekaterina Semenchuk, nobody cares, they just want to mess up the articles I created or worked on, that's the way I feel. Makes me very angry. Plus the articles I have written or maintained about the history of early Christianity, and created or re-wrote lots of article on Meyerbeer operas. This isn't good for me, too much fighting and bossy, aggressive people.Smeat75 (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Smeat, I am sorry to see you angry at a group of people that might include me. Here I thought we got along well for years. Wrong? Did you hear the message that half of our readers - those on mobile devices - don't see Handel's image as long as it is in the template container, nor the container? How do you feel about that? Wouldn't it be better to show the image separately? Did anybody nominate Handel's side navbox for deletion, or Meyerbeer's? Didn't many of us show respect for one editor's special wish for two topics? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am not angry with you Gerda. We have worked together well and without conflict.Smeat75 (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Good to know. What about the other questions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Niikimaria advised me to ask about Pia de' Tolomei (opera). It is now the only Donizetti opera using the sidebar. Is that necessary, knowing that mobile users will not see its image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * She advised you to ask me? That is not necessary, I haven't edited WP in a while, I can't deal with arguing and conflicts with everything going on in the world.Smeat75 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)