User talk:Smeat75/Archive 3

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination)[edit] 

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jews_and_Communism_(2nd_nomination). Thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well.....[edit] Aren't you glad you came back (much as I hate to say "I told you so")? This is richly deserved:

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar For finding the "smoking gun" in Jews and Communism. Coretheapple (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Coretheapple (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!Smeat75 (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC) It may be early in May, but I sense a WP:SNOWfall in that AfD discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC) That's not the barnstar you noobs... :)[edit] Speurneusster.svg The Detective Barnstar Its this one. Congradz again. -- Director (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Awwww, that is really nice, Director! Thank you!Smeat75 (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


A barnstar for you![edit] WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Evidently I'm late to the presentation ceremony here, but I also felt that this was deserved, for your work re the soon-to-be-ex-article Jews and Communism. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you! I just hope you are right about it being a soon to be ex-article!Smeat75 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC) A barnstar for you![edit] Barnstar of Diligence Hires.png The Barnstar of Diligence After reading your recent message on the Administrators Noticeboard, as well as in acknowledgement of your part in the (hopeful) deletion of Jews and Communism, I feel this is well deserved. Outstanding work in helping to prevent the circulation of hate speech on this website. Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you so much!Smeat75 (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC) A barnstar for you![edit] Compass Barnstar Hires.png The Guidance Barnstar For your amazing work to protect Wikipedia from antisemitism and copyvio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyWinterOwl (talk • contribs) [1]

Defender of the Wiki Barnstar[edit] WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar Dear Smeat75, there is no such thing as winning too many awards and it is therefore my honor as well to acknowledge your stubborn and dogged determination, in spite of all the unjustified insults you had to endure, to pinpoint everything that was wrong with the misbegotten "Jews & Communism" article and you played a huge role in revealing it for the sham and shame that it was. "The Defender of the Wiki may be awarded to those who have gone above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes" and this certainly applies to you. It has been a pleasure meeting you on Wikipedia. IZAK (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Hey, don't forget who gave you the first barnstar. Was I right or what? Coretheapple (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes Coretheapple, you are 100% right and that Smeat75 deserves extra special recognition because he took a lot of punishment for his stand but he never backed down and just plowed ahead until he was proven right! And you Coretheapple also deserve much credit! Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks guys! Yes I really appreciated Coretheapple's support at a time I really needed it and Izak was taking a lot of punishment even before I was. All best to you bothSmeat75 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC) I'm just glad you didn't quit, as your work made all the difference. Coretheapple (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC) I've suggested this whole thing to the Signpost.[2] Coretheapple (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Well I did quit when an admin told me not to edit war about "the Jews killed the Tsar" but I kept watching things and when Galassi removed it I came back. If I could not try to remove that I wanted nothing to do with WP. Thanks again!Smeat75 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC) If they do an article on this in Signpost, which they should, you should point all that out. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC) A page you started (Parnasso in Festa) has been reviewed![edit] Thanks for creating Parnasso in Festa, Smeat75!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This article is nicely written and quite informative. Thank you!

To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

What a nice note, thanks!Smeat75 (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC) How to deal?[edit] Can I have an advise on how to deal with Director? You have more experience than me so you can perhaps advise. What is happening on the RfC I posted on Talk:Dalmatia is a good example. There is certainly something that I do wrong because every time that I make the smallest interference on his edits, he gets extremely upset. What can I do to make him less upset? Perhaps I do something wrong? --Silvio1973 (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hoo boy, that's a tough one. I am not sure I really dealt with him all that well, I was "fighting" against him and his pal PRODUCER as he then was, who has now vanished I think, over an issue that I was absolutely certain I was right about and they were wrong, and that I felt was so important I did not care if I broke the rules and got kicked off WP. They were both extremely obnoxious and yes, objected to any questioning or challenging to anything they did, insulting, OWNING the article, edit-warring,operating a tag team, on and on. I was able to find absolute proof that what I said was right all along, whereupon PRODUCER seems to have packed up his bags and left and Director did have the grace to admit he was at fault and apologised. All I can suggest is that you try to find allies, get as many others as you can on "your side" so that you are not fighting a "lone battle". If Director is trying to OWN the article and being insulting and edit-warring, you could try appealing to an admin I suppose, he just narrowly escaped a topic ban so he should be fresh in their minds. Good luck!Smeat75 (talk) 16:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC) I don't know what to do. Honestly he thinks he got any right on the articles he edits. When I see the power such people have I understand Wikipedia has no future. --Silvio1973 (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Silvio, if a user is intransigent, it seems that the only way to deal with him is by going to AN/I or beginning a user RfC. I'm not familiar with the latter, but the former might work if a user's conduct is egregious. Remember too that sometimes ANI cases can boomerang. Once someone brought an ANI case against me and in short order he was permanently blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC) User:Coretheapple, User:Smeat75 I have posted an RfC/U about Director and listed some of thr insults Director directed to me, the issue is that I do not evrn know if I correctly filled the form, it's quite complex. Do you think I files correctly? I have a doubt. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Afraid I really have no experience with user RfCs, only article RfCs, so I'm afraid I can't help you as far as format is concerned. Coretheapple (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I don't really know about that either, sorry, I will try to have a look later but I have to be away from the computer now for most of the rest of the day.Smeat75 (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC) If you cannot find the RfC/U it means it is lost somewhere... It took me a lot of time to write it and I need advice to know if it is technically correctly entered. Your help for this technical question would be very appreciated. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I found it by going through your user contribs, as you didn't link to it. But that was point: I just don't know if it is technically correct. I have no experience with such things. I went through the criteria and got dizzy. Why not look at previous user RfCs? They seem to follow an exact format. Coretheapple (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC) User Dangerous Panda told me this is the form to follow and he looks very knowledgeable. It is possible to see it in the Pending RfC/U I think it is correctly posted. the issue is that requires 2 users certifying it to become active otherwise the RfC/U will disappee in 36 hours from now. It is a very bureaucratic process but it is the one that must be followed (I entered an ANI) but it was rejected. Now I need two certifiers. If I understood well, long time low and medium intensity incivility (withotu major incident) should be treated with this form. However if you wish to certify that this issue is real, you just need to go to 3 and fill the section "Users certifying the basis for this dispute". Thank you in advance for your help. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Silvio1973 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I see Mark Bernstein has endorsed the RfC/U with you Silvio1973, that is what you need. It is supposed to be about current disputes and the only connection I have ever had with Director was over an article that is now deleted and with his apology I put that issue behind me. I will keep an eye on the process, maybe Mark Bernstein understands it better than I do and if I feel I can contribute anything helpful, I will.Smeat75 (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC) This is the craziest thing of my life. I am accused of canvassing when infact I notified to all user, including those notoriously on Director's side, of the RfC. Abd what is funny is that so far only Director and his friends have edited on the RfC. Where is the canvassing? Silvio1973 (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about canvassing, but the problem I'm having with the RfC is that, first, as Smeat points out, the problems that I had with Director concern an article that is now gone, including its talk page, so the subject is sort of a dead issue at this time. Since the talk page is gone, diffs are unavailable. But that's not the whole problem from my perspective. The problem is that you're describing conduct in a different article about which I know nothing. So it's hard for me to weigh in. I do see some familiar elements there, some WP:OWN behavior, but I just am not familiar with that particular article nor am I sure that the two situations are similar. However, I will watch that debate carefully and see if I can make a useful contribution. Coretheapple (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Atalanta (opera)[edit] At first I thought that the "Sources" section, which ended up under "Recordings" was my error from earlier in the day. However, I realise that you must have put it there.

If you wish to reference the two Winton Dean pieces as sources for the "Recordings" section, then simply make them refs i.e. < ref > (spaces are mine) so that they will appear down below: e.g. < ref >Dean 2007, p. xx < /ref > would refer to that publication which is included in full in the "Refs" section below. Hope this helps. Viva-Verdi (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have been revising that article, I did not use the Dean "sources" at all, somebody else put them there at some earlier point and I did not like to take them out.I moved "sources" to be under "notes", is that the right place for them? Feel free to move it around to somewhere else. And can I ask you, I usually find what recordings are available by looking on Amazon's site but is that considered a reliable source that can be given as a reference?Smeat75 (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Oh, maybe you moved them there not me, anyway I hope they are in the right place now. A lot of the articles on Handel works are very pitiful in my opinion and I am trying to re-do them so help is appreciated. I do tend to focus on the content more than format etc so guidance in those sort of things is especially helpful, I have been changing a lot of "Act One" etc that I put in various places to "Act 1" and so on.Smeat75 (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your work on the Handel operas[edit] Just FYI, I'm including the link to the WP Opera guidelines for articles:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article styles and formats I'm glad to see that you are a member of the Opera Project! All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I am trying hard to follow all those rules! Please let me know if I get them wrong, though I don't want others to have to clean up after me.Smeat75 (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Well, it looks as though your work is progressing well. Bravo! Handel needed some help! I want to draw your attention to the new "page views" tool that's available on WP for opera articles and mention a concept which I've developed. That is, a tie-in to (often) smaller opera companies which present many of these rare operas (though, for me, the focus is on the Italian primo ottocento where I do most of my editing, and ongoing projects to improve Bellini, Donizetti, and Rossini articles). Here's the link to the Wikitool for Ottone: https://tools.wmflabs.org/popularpages/graph.php?title=Ottone&start=Sep13&end=Jun14 As you see, there's been a growing interest in this opera, and I suspect that it has something to do with English Touring Opera's autumn schedule which will include this opera. I've already worked on two Donizetti articles for operas which ETO have done and are planning to do in Spring '15. I knoew a few people there now, so get "heads up" on upcomoing productions and help where I can. I often see a definite increase in interest in the Wiki article as performances get closer. For Belisario, done in concert in London in 2012, I actually saw at least three people carrying the wiki article with them!! This all helps sell tickets which, if that didn't happen, there would be fewer performances of these rare pieces. so, in the case of Ottone, it might be worth focusing there to get that to be as good as it can get..... I must say that it is nice to see our work being read, even though we can't take credit for it as individuals. All the best, Viva-Verdi (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Thanks for the nice message! I have been looking at "Ottone" and wondering if the synopsis, which I did not write, would make any sense to a casual reader, it is a typically convoluted opera seria story but the synopsis makes it even more convoluted than necessary it seems to me. Yes, I am sure that an opera being currently performed causes a lot of people to turn to WP for pre-show info which gives this site quite a responsibility. I noticed that "Orlando" suddenly was getting hundreds of page views too, probably because there were performances of it in June at the Holland Festival with Bejun Mehta, and they did not get much help from the WP article as it was little more than a stub. I appreciate you keeping an eye on things and your help!Smeat75 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Good information[edit] Referring to this edit[4]. It may have required some bit of research, but again, good one! OccultZone (Talk) 02:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Georg Friedrich of Prussia[edit] Where are the archives here? Talk:Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia. I mean Archives: Index,1,2,3,4,5 and so on. Maybe you know how to change this. I am not able to do it.--MICHAVP (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit] Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arianna in Creta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acis and Galatea. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Expected[edit] As we predicted, problems left unresolved in arbitration are going to fester until they are resolved by other means. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Smeat75. You might want to check out this arbitration. It's relevant to some previous conversations we had about the use of sources. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jesus[edit] Hey, Thanks for your comment on Talk:Jesus. This paged is apparently watched over by a glossy-eyed bunch of young biblical scholars unwilling to give a centimetre. While expert (sort of) at literary analysis, biblical scholars generally remain clueless about developments in epistemology, historical theory and evidentiary burden. As I said I can provide a sharp set of references to the top thinkers in the field disputing the claims made in this article. I know they exist elsewhere in Wikipedia, but they do not exist in this article, and that is the point. How does this work? I've already written a short sharp subsection, fully referenced, but am certain that it will go up, and come down within hours, if not minutes. --IseeEwe (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I will tell you honestly that I am probably not the most sympathetic editor to your goals here that you could find. I approach this question from the perspective of Roman history and as far as I know there is not a single historian of Roman history / classical studies who has expressed any doubt about the existence of Jesus and the crucifixion being a fact of history. Also, to be honest again, I agree with Bart Ehrman and Michael Grant (both agnostic or atheist) about everything, they are the authorities who I follow, on WP there is no shame in admitting that I don't think for myself as far as these questions go, following reliable sources is what we are supposed to do. As with everything on WP, for any addition to the article you need reliable sources and need to avoid synthesis ie you could not apply any broad principle to do with historical theory or evidentiary burden to the question of Jesus' existence yourself as that would be original research but "that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." You could post your proposed subsection on the talk page and see what response you get (and putting material into articles and having it instantly removed is really not such a terrible thing, it has happened to us all).Smeat75 (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit] Peacedove.svg This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 20:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit] The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Historicity of Jesus". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 August 2014. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit] The request for formal mediation concerning Historicity of Jesus, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC) (Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ANB discussion[edit] There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Move War at History of the Jews in Nepal, and RFC review that concerns you because you were recently involved with one or more of the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Jews in Nepal, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June 30 (History of the Jews in Nepal), Talk:History of the Jews in Nepal#RfC: Should we change article name to 'Judaism in Nepal'?. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration, Historicity of Jesus[edit] You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration; Wikipedia:Arbitration guide. Thanks, Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened[edit] You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus arbitration case - proposed decision posted[edit] This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus closed[edit] This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

6) Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors. 7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus.[5] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

ArbCom elections are now open![edit] Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5